Local Communities

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Sally Keeble: This debate is about the Government's determination to improve the quality of life in communities up and down the country. On one level, improved quality of life means personal prosperity and better life chances, such as health, skills, education and job opportunities. However, having a better quality of life in one's own home is not enough if people are afraid when they open their front doors.
	I want to focus on the quality of life as it relates to people's experience of the areas in which they live and the contribution that the quality of the urban environment makes to that—in particular, what happens on the streets and in our town centres. What people think about their area is fundamental to their confidence and sense of well-being. It is also fundamental to the regeneration and renewal of our towns, cities and villages, to their economic success and well-being, to their social success and to the sense of pride that people have in their communities.
	The Government are determined to achieve three key objectives: to make local communities cleaner, to make them safer and to give people a sense of ownership of their surroundings so that they feel they have some control over what happens in the streets around their homes. The objective of creating cleaner environments and communities is not just a matter of aesthetics; there are broader strategic goals in ensuring that our streets are free of litter, graffiti and vandalism. Cleaner streets create communities that are more secure and more stable. They also play a major role in the quality of life and the ability of a town or city to attract the inward investment that creates new jobs and gives people the chance to achieve personal prosperity.
	Conversely, rundown streets, public squares and parks that are abandoned to muggers and drug dealers, and unkempt shopping centres and estates littered with abandoned cars are familiar scenes in too many areas. They foster criminality and antisocial behaviour and actively deter investment and confidence in our towns and cities. Public squalor undermines private affluence. As a leading criminologist, Professor George Kelling, wrote:
	"Vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers—the sense of mutual regard and the obligations of civility—are lowered by actions that seem to signal that 'no one cares.'"
	The Government recognise that and I am pleased that much excellent work is taking place around the country, so making the public realm cleaner and safer and thereby contributing to the quality of life of those communities on both a social and an economic level.
	We have taken action to deal with litter collection, one of the most basic of street services. Earlier this month, we doubled the fines that wardens can issue for littering offences. Litter encourages other environmental crimes, such as graffiti and fly tipping. Taken together, those problems make many residents uncomfortable and ashamed about the areas they live in and fearful of walking the streets at night. They also open the way to wider crime problems and often remind people of other problems in the area, in particular drug abuse. I am sure many hon. Members will have heard constituents talk about litter in general before focusing on the problem of needles and drug paraphernalia in their area, including the fears that that generates.
	We are piloting schemes in which nine local authorities in different parts of the country can spend the fines that they receive from littering offences on environmental enforcement services. Three other local authorities, again right across the country, will join that scheme shortly.
	Abandoned cars are another bane of the urban environment. We recently set out plans to give local authorities the power to deal more effectively with that problem, and they can remove them within 24 hours with immediate effect.
	We have also recognised on a positive level the benefits that a quality environment can bring to local communities and the strategic importance of a high-quality environment to provide an impetus for regeneration and renewal. The Government established an urban green spaces taskforce that I chaired. It is due to report next month. There has also been a cross-cutting review of public open spaces, chaired by my colleague Lord Falconer, which will also make proposals to improve the quality of the public realm.
	We are already seeing how towns and cities at a local level are seizing the initiative on those fronts. In particular, they are taking action to ensure that our parks and green spaces are not urban wastelands, but add benefit and value to the local community. For example, the regeneration proposals for Eastside in Birmingham will successfully incorporate new green spaces. A new city park will cover an area that mostly comprises abandoned and rundown warehouses. There will be improved access and circulation space in the new development, which will be linked with plans for a new residential development. We aim to get people and money circulating in an area that is very run down.
	On a smaller scale, Groundwork, through the Barclays SiteSavers programme, has turned an area of disused land attached to Tewkesbury adult learning centre into an attractive garden and wildlife area that is accessible for people with disabilities—one of many excellent examples of the scheme turning derelict sites, which can be a haven for criminality, into community assets. I see that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is in his place, and I hope that he knows the scheme and appreciates its value.
	One of the big issues of public concern is community safety. The management of the public realm and the local environment is crucial in that regard. Our second key objective is therefore to make local communities safer. Fear of crime, as we all know, can have a pernicious effect on people's confidence and their quality of life. We can improve people's quality of life substantially by making them feel safer, and we can actually make them safer through better management of streets and public areas. That type of work needs to go hand in hand with the work done by the local police force.
	We are working to improve street lighting to increase safety and allay people's fears about walking along the streets after dark, and we have recently agreed with local authorities to undertake a national condition survey to help compile a national inventory of lighting. Public- private partnership schemes for street lighting are under way in some areas, including Manchester, Walsall and Sunderland. The £170 million CCTV camera fund and the Home Office's safer communities initiative—worth £20 million in 2002–03—will also help to make neighbourhoods safer.
	In addition to these initiatives, designing development better from the outset can help reduce fear of crime, make crime harder to commit and increase the risk of detection. Designing out crime is an increasingly important and relevant issue, and we had have two Adjournment debates on the subject already in Westminster Hall. If hon. Members want a concrete example of how it has helped to turn a community around, they can consider the Northview estate redevelopment in Swanley, Kent. In the last two years, burglary has fallen by 73 per cent. and violent crime has gone down by 64 per cent. Community spirit has grown and tenants are transferring back to the estate. There are many ways in which the Government, and my Department in particular, are helping to foster good design through guidance, planning statements and our detailed work with the building industry.
	A further good example of the way we are encouraging the designing out of crime is provided by our home zones schemes. These have been extremely popular and have been taken up by communities up and down the country. They transform the way in which residents can use their local streets. The road space is shared between drivers of motor vehicles and other road users, and planned, designed and built or rebuilt carefully to make sure that local people can maximise use—older people who want good, level pavements with street furniture, children who want play spaces, and drivers who want decent car parking close to their front doors. They also make sure that community safety issues are tackled—good-quality fencing, secure entrances and the ending of rat runs, and making sure that people have an environment that they can manage, but also one that they can enjoy.
	In January this year, I announced the 61 successful bids—from 57 local authorities up and down the country—for home zones funding from the £30 million challenge fund announced by the Prime Minister last year. There was intense competition for the funds—a sign that the scheme had struck a real chord with local communities. One of our pilot home zones schemes in the New England area of Peterborough is already showing good results. That area includes a large amount of Victorian terraces and more modern semi-detached housing. About 1,450 households are to be involved in a phased traffic management programme that will cut down on rat running and help to reduce crime. Indeed, similar schemes in other parts of the country are remodelling areas where there is old terraced housing and where straight streets become rat runs for cars.

Dennis Skinner: I heard my hon. Friend's reference to the home zones fund and other matters. When she visited some of the mining communities a few months ago, including Shirebrook in my area, she will have seen not just abandoned cars but houses abandoned by people who are little more than Rachmans of this modern age. Promises were made that money would be available to make sure that we redevelop some of those old colliery villages to improve the quality of life. Can she say anything further on that today?

Sally Keeble: Specifically for my hon. Friend's area, we agreed financing for work to be done to redevelop the area through the Meaden valley partnership. I have continued to have discussions with people involved to make sure that the work is progressing, and I understand that they have done extremely well in producing the plans, in getting the partners involved and in sorting out the finances so that those particular areas—including that in my hon. Friend's constituency—can be dealt with. He will also know that, separately from his area, which has been a model of regeneration and of how partners can be pulled together, the Government have announced their intention to consider market renewal in a number of areas of low demand. We made an announcement on that some time ago.
	The type of issues that my hon. Friend drew to my attention on my visit are exactly the reasons why we must make sure that there are jobs, that the built environment is dealt with, and that people do not have derelict houses and rundown streets. I found the problems staggering when I went round the streets with my hon. Friend and spoke to people about what it is like to live in some of those areas. Work is under way, and I assure him that I follow through closely what is happening with the Meaden valley partnership to make sure that there is progress. I am grateful to him for raising that point.
	We can tackle crime partly through housing and streetscape and the issues raised by my hon. Friend, but also through pulling together the community, as well as working with the police. We need to get residents, local businesses and agencies fully involved in the fight against crime so that crime prevention and reduction are not solely matters for the police. One way of doing that is through the neighbourhood and street wardens schemes. The Government have allocated some £43.5 million for those initiatives to tackle the whole range of safety and environmental issues, and 120 schemes are going live across the country this year, including one in Bolsover, as my hon. Friend may be aware. They are helping to care for and manage the physical appearance of our streets and open spaces, as well as reducing crime and fear of crime, and deterring antisocial behaviour.
	Neighbourhood wardens can be the eyes and ears of the police, the local authority and the community. They act as a visual deterrent, and their presence on the streets can reassure local residents. Wardens are involved in activities such as security surveys, property marking, neighbourhood watch schemes and providing victim support. They are already helping to build community confidence and foster social inclusion in 85 areas across England and Wales. In a very short time, they have established themselves as key public services.

Stephen McCabe: On that point, are not the people that my hon. Friend is describing exactly the kind of support officers that the Government envisage introducing through the Police Reform Bill? Is it not all the more regrettable, therefore, that last night the unelected Lords decided to try to remove from the Bill those very proposals for strengthening our communities?

Sally Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right to suggest that there is a relationship between the wardens and the support officers who are intended to work with the police, although they are not exactly the same. Wardens have proved a remarkable success, and they have done spectacular work to tackle crime and turn communities around, more than justifying their appointment. Having spent a great deal of time visiting and talking to wardens and those who work with them, I know that in most of the places where they work particularly well they work closely with the police, and each group very well understands the role of the other. It is a great shame that they have been depicted as being in conflict with the police.
	Let us consider some of the success stories. In Darlington, since wardens began patrolling in May 2000, the number of burglaries has dropped by 17 per cent. Wardens in Manchester, working very closely with the police as part of a package of anti-crime measures, have helped to cut crime by a third. If we are to tackle crime, it is important that we look carefully at the lessons to be learned from such initiatives.
	Having spent time talking to wardens and people in the local communities and seeing the detailed work that wardens do, I know that they have achieved improvements that come under the banner of "community safety", to which values and quantities cannot easily be attached. For example, in east Manchester, where I spent time walking around with the wardens late at night, I saw that they have helped to make it possible for old people to go out in winter to evening activities. The wardens will take people from their homes to bingo or to the social club, and escort them home afterwards, which the police are unable to do. Such action is important because it makes people feel secure and allows them to go out on the streets. In a sense, it enables the community to police itself. I also spoke to an old person in another part of the country who said that when she saw the uniformed wardens outside, she felt safer and much more confident about going out, just to do simple things like shopping.

Lawrie Quinn: May I respond to the point about enabling communities, which is crucial to the debate? As someone who worked as a professional involved in the built environment, I am aware of the criticism that architects, engineers and those involved in physical infrastructure works have not taken any heed of communities. The failure to engage with and listen to communities, and in particular what happened on the estate where young Damilola Taylor died, is an indictment of us as a society. We must begin by understanding that the built environment is a fundamental part of how society works. Quality can be determined only by the end users of that environment—those who live in the communities.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to make sure that housing estates and streets are built to be safe from the outset, and about the importance of that being understood by everybody involved in planning and building. That has been the subject of great debate in the community, and my Department has produced a great deal of documentation setting out how it can be achieved.
	If my hon. Friend looks at Castle Vale, a housing estate in Birmingham, which I know is not his part of the country, he will see that some of the earlier phases of its redevelopment were built to more traditional designs and have had high rates of burglaries and break-ins. The buildings are not completely secure from the front, so people can get over gates. The newer phases will implement some of the design principles promoted by the Department, so the housing will be more secure from the front. In addition, it will look extremely attractive, with gardens and open spaces in the back which people can use safely. By making something safer, one can also make it more attractive and improve the quality of the whole area.
	My hon. Friend made an extremely important point about involving the community, which I shall deal with towards the end of my remarks. For the moment, I shall just say that where the fight against crime has been linked with good environmental management and community involvement, the results have been spectacular. For example, in the east Brighton new deal for communities area, where the community is involved in designing the services, crime figures are down by 15 per cent., domestic burglaries are down by 28 per cent. and vehicle crime is down by a third. That is thanks in part to a safety team that includes wardens.
	In the Bradford new deal for communities area, the level of violent crime in particular is bucking the national trend with a reduction of 32 per cent. In the new deal for communities area in east Manchester, apart from the reduction in crime which I mentioned, 26 per cent. of residents said that they felt safer, and the number of people who fear being attacked fell from 86 to 55 per cent. Those are the real achievements of bold, imaginative schemes that engage sometimes cynical communities to make the streets safer. In the process of securing those material benefits, the schemes attract more investment and jobs to the area.

Robert Syms: We all know that if we target resources on an area, that usually has an impact on crime figures. Is the Minister confident that those initiatives are not displacing crime to neighbouring areas? She is focusing on communities that are receiving resources, but not on what is happening next door, and that is my concern.

Sally Keeble: That is a fair point, and it is a particular concern for people in areas where CCTV is being installed. The evidence in most of those areas is that many of the criminals, as well as their victims, come from the area, so tackling crime does not always displace it. To achieve a reduction in crime, one has to deal with its causes, and the Government's commitment to do so—to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime—is therefore particularly important.

Geraint Davies: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about wardens, and we hope to have them in Croydon. The more co-operation there is between local authorities, who administer park wardens and traffic wardens, and the police, the more we can extend the eyes and ears of the police and involve the community. If we reduce rat running, we not only make the streets safer for our children, but make it more difficult for criminals to get in and out of communities. We need also to reduce pedestrian rat running, and by thinking carefully about the design of estates, we can make it more difficult for graffiti vandals to enter and then escape quickly.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is right. Careful work has been done in Croydon to tackle problems of low-level street crime. That effort is essential to the development of the town as a shopping and leisure centre, and innovative work has been done to find ways to encourage good management of public areas.
	Croydon has been especially successful in dealing with public transport issues. One of the big barriers to using public transport, especially buses, is fear of crime. That is why we encourage local authorities, local transport authorities and companies to improve the quality of the areas around bus stops, where people feel a particular fear of crime. The quality of the Croydon tram system is a great credit to the local authority. That sort of quality is key to making sure that people feel safe using the tram and moving around the town centre.
	Many of the schemes that I have mentioned focus on residential areas, but notable successes have also been scored in town centres. Town centre management partnerships between the public and private sectors are making major urban communities safer and cleaner, and helping to regenerate local economies. In Coventry, thanks to a retail crime initiative, the introduction of a quick-clean hit squad and the greening of the city centre, there has been an increase of more than 3 per cent. in the number of visitors, together with an improved socio- demographic profile, additional spending of almost £4 million, which is a large sum, in the local economy, and private sector refits and refurbishments worth up to £3 million.

Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware of the initiative taken some time ago by the Labour council in Coventry to create a city centre company that is to some extent separate from the council and has the sole responsibility of concentrating on the city centre. That initiative has had a great impact on the city.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right. Such initiatives, which can take several different forms, have transformed many city centres. Another excellent example of regeneration work is in Newcastle, where careful work with the public and private sectors is producing a city centre that is second to none in terms of the quality of its environment. It offers high-quality paving in an attractive pedestrian mall, which is steam cleaned at night and swept constantly during the day; public art; high-quality lighting; excellent use of heritage building; and partnerships between police and the leisure industry to ensure that the clubbers' paradise is relatively safe.
	Many of the schemes that I have mentioned are effective because they benefit from full and active community engagement. If we are to tackle public realm issues and make places cleaner and safer so that businesses want to invest and people want to live in them, we have to focus from the outset on the needs and aspirations of local people and ensure that they are involved in shaping and managing their local environment. Those ideas underpin all the Government's efforts through their agenda for local government and in regeneration and renewal.
	First, we are making local government more open and accessible through our changes to council structures and our work on different methods of voting. Secondly, and in many ways more radically, we have introduced new structures that directly involve local people in decision taking, especially people in disadvantaged areas, which have been the scene of the greatest voter apathy and the lowest turnouts in more traditional elections.
	Local strategic partnerships bring together local residents, public sector agencies, local government and the voluntary and business sectors. Through consultation and local consensus, they set the strategic aims for renewal in the area and ensure that they are achieved. Our new deal for communities boards, which include representatives from the local community and the voluntary sector, also take decisions on regeneration.
	The success of the new deal for communities in engaging local people is reflected in the generally high turnout in elections for community representatives in those partnerships and boards, compared with turnout in local elections. In Sheffield, there was a 52 per cent. turnout for the new deal for communities partnership elections, compared with 26 per cent. in local elections; in Bristol, turnout for new deal for communities partnership elections was 54 per cent., and in Newcastle it was 41 per cent.
	Getting local people to take responsibility and to identify their own priorities fosters civic pride and helps to improve their quality of life. Often, issues relating to the environment and maintenance of the public realm are high priorities for the community boards.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that often the perpetrators of the blight on our built environment and the cause of the sense of lack of security felt by the wider population are under-25s and younger people? They are not inclined to participate in community activities or to vote—they feel disfranchised, as though they are not stakeholders in the brave new world my hon. Friend describes. At the risk of sounding cynical, may I put her on the spot and ask how we might re-engage, or engage for the first time, that core group? They are our future citizens, but they are also graffiti artists, public transport fare dodgers, and the cause of great fear among the older population.

Sally Keeble: If I had the answers to how to involve young people in politics and the democratic process, I would be well ahead of the game. In fact, many of the new structures have engaged a wider cross-section of the community than has been involved before. Let me cite a few striking examples. Among other things, neighbourhood and street wardens do a lot of work in schools. They have been able to involve young people—often younger than the ones my hon. Friend describes, I admit—in local activities centred on the environment. That has been important.
	The employment profile of those who have become wardens is telling. A warden in Islington said that he spent a lot of time talking to young joyriders—people who were doing a lot of the things that my hon. Friend is worried about, such as stealing bikes, driving them around the area, and then dumping or setting fire to them. When I asked him how he managed to do a job that some might describe as challenging or even dangerous, he replied that he had been a steward at the local football club for about 15 years, so he knew a thing or two about talking to young people—quite difficult young people at that.
	Community warden posts seem to attract people from diverse backgrounds. That helps them to engage with the general public in maintaining the public realm. We have not analysed the profile of members of local strategic partnerships and new deal for communities boards, but in view of my hon. Friend's comments, I might undertake such an analysis. Having met board members in one or two areas, it seems to me that we have been able to engage people who might not have become involved in more conventional politics or democratic structures, in part because as board members they deal directly with neighbourhood concerns about which everyone feels strongly.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I shall see whether we can carry out some sort of study of the profile of people who stand for new deal for communities boards and similar posts, to learn whether we are managing to engage with a wider than usual range of people.

Adrian Sanders: Is not one of the reasons why many 16 to 18-year-olds are not interested in politics that they do not have the vote? Perhaps the Government should consider lowering the voting age.

Sally Keeble: That is a debate for another day. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) was talking about 18 to 25-year-olds, but we can talk about the full age range. I shall examine the profile of those on the new deal for communities boards to ascertain whether we are managing to engage with a wider community. That would be helpful in evaluating the success of the schemes.
	There is also an issue about the involvement of the business community.

Clive Betts: Perhaps the reason why some young people do not participate in elections is that they are cynical about the actions of their local council and the way in which they are treated. The Lib Dems in Sheffield have recently cut the youth service budget once again, which will have an effect on the community. That is something that we should consider. At the same time, they have given £1 million to their publicity budget, presumably to help get themselves re-elected. They have also given all the senior officers on the council a £30,000 pay increase. Perhaps actions of that sort breed cynicism and explain some young people's approach to politics.

Sally Keeble: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we do not alienate young people by sometimes looking in two directions at once, which might be part of the problem in Sheffield.
	It is important to recognise that community involvement does not mean the involvement of the residential community alone. The Government's business improvement districts, a programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, will enable authorities and businesses to work together to deliver cleaner streets, better pedestrian environments, new green spaces and improved security. The role of the business community involves looking after the environment of town centres and becoming involved in the wider regeneration debate, not only by investment but by support, advice and mentoring, as well as all the other things that the business community is extremely well equipped to do. Its role has been very important.
	The Government believe that everyone has the right to a high-quality living environment. People have the right to walk the streets without fear of crime or without encountering litter, graffiti, abandoned cars and drug paraphernalia or without running the gauntlet of antisocial behaviour. They have a right to a public realm that enhances private comfort, stimulates community pride and boosts local economies.
	We are taking action to ensure that our towns, cities and villages have cleaner and safer environments, and to ensure also that local communities have that sense of ownership and pride that is the best defence against urban decay. This approach will make our towns and cities places where businesses choose to invest and where people choose to live.
	We still have much to do but we have made a start. There are now lower crime rates in some of our most disadvantaged areas; there are more people living in some city centres, thus stemming the flight to the suburbs; there is better management of our public realm; and in some instances, there are truly inspiring developments in town centres. Above all, there is a better quality of life for local communities.

Malcolm Moss: We believe that, judging by the Government's atrocious record on such issues since they came into power, this debate should have been entitled "The Decline in Quality of Life since 1997". The timing of the debate is yet another feeble attempt by the Government to create a platform for Labour party press releases prior to the local elections next Thursday.
	True to form, the Minister has this morning issued a press release, which we believe is a clear and serious breach of the guidance for civil servants during local elections. I shall quote from that guidance, which states:
	"It is important therefore that civil servants take particular care during this period"—
	that is, the run-up to local elections—
	"to ensure that they conduct themselves in accordance with the Civil Service Code . . . Particular care should be exercised in relation to the announcement of sensitive decisions with a local dimension . . . particular care should be taken over official support, and the use of public resources, including publicity, for Ministerial announcements which have a bearing on matters relevant to the local elections".

Sally Keeble: That slur on the press office of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is outrageous. Staff prepared the press release as professional press officers, and they have acted in a completely proper way. It is disgraceful to imply that they have in any way breached any code for civil servants during this period.

Malcolm Moss: I am not accusing civil servants. I am accusing the Minister. Presumably she decides which press releases go out and which do not.
	The guidance continues:
	"The period of sensitivity preceding Local Elections is not fixed in relation to any particular date, but the general convention is that particular care should be taken in the three weeks preceding the elections".
	In this case, that is from 11 April 2002. That was endorsed in a reply by the Prime Minister to a written question from the hon. Member—

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at a time when people are concerned about graffiti and street crime, for example, and everyone is talking about them, the Government should suspend all activity in the run-up to local elections? Is that not completely ridiculous?

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman displays the fact that he is completely ridiculous. If he reads the guidance, he will find that what I have read out is exactly what it states. The Government will still be in power, whatever the outcome of local elections. It is incumbent on the Government, with all their resources, not to involve themselves in publicity and press releases about local issues—yet that is exactly what the Minister has done

Geraint Davies: My constituents would certainly want me to continue the fight against graffiti and local crime, and to improve the quality of life, irrespective of elections—and also irrespective of the silly things that the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman should remain in his seat. Yet again he has missed the point. I am arguing that the Minister issued a press release as a member of the Government. What the hon. Gentleman does in his constituency is up to him. That does not breach the code. However, the press release issued today certainly does. The Minister should give the House an explanation when she winds up.
	All we heard in the Minister's—

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: No, I am moving on.
	All we heard in the Minister's contribution was the usual list of Government initiatives, schemes and interventions, many of which have been announced over and over again. Of themselves, these do not deliver on quality of life. The key is to measure—

Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to refer so extensively to a press release that the rest of us have not seen? Would it not be appropriate to read it out?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The press release to which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has referred is a public document. Therefore he is in order in referring to it.

Malcolm Moss: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) wants to see the press release—I do not intend to read it out because that would take far too much time—he can go behind the Chair, collect it from the Opposition Whip and read it himself.
	The key is to measure outcomes, and on that basis, the Government's record since 1997 has been woeful. The national health service is far worse with longer waiting lists and increasing litigation against a declining service. Our transport system is entirely inadequate. There is increasing congestion on our roads, and the rail system has become worse under Labour. Crime is still the No. 1 issue in many of our communities, and the electorate no longer believe Government statistics on crime.
	Under Labour, despite soaring taxes, our streets are becoming more dirty and dangerous. Precious green spaces are under threat. Our rural economy is in tatters and there is no end in sight to the misery endured by our rural and farming communities.
	Under Labour, council taxes have increased by more than three times the rate of inflation, with little or no improvement in services in many local authority areas. Only Conservative councils are delivering value for money, public services and the cleaning up of our streets.
	Despite the Minister's platitudes, violent crime is soaring throughout the country. Before the 1997 election, Labour promised to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. However, under Labour, there have been 500 fewer police officers in England since 1997 and 39 per cent. fewer special constables.
	Street crime is soaring. Labour has hit the police with red tape and bureaucracy, taking police off our streets which, combined with their plans for more interference from Whitehall, has resulted in plummeting morale in the police force. The latest crime figures for the year ending 31 March 2001 show that in the past three years violence against the person has increased by 20 per cent., robbery by 42 per cent. and violent crime in total by 21 per cent. across England and Wales. A comparison between the last nine months of 2001 and 2000 shows a 26 per cent. increase in street crime across England and Wales and a 39 per cent. increase in London alone.
	There are, however, enterprising initiatives to combat crime by Conservative-controlled councils. Kent county council has introduced rural community wardens in partnership with Kent police. Wardens are the eyes and ears of the police in the countryside, linked with local shops and businesses, neighbourhood watch schemes and county council services like schools and youth groups. Westminster city council has launched a city guardian initiative to reduce crime, antisocial behaviour and breaches of public safety.
	Adequate street lighting is crucial to the fight against crime, particularly theft and assault. Conservative councils spend more on street lighting; they spend £66 a year per street light compared with £61 in Labour councils and only £60 in Liberal Democrat councils—[Interruption.] Labour Members may scoff, but those figures were worked out under best value indicator 95 introduced by their Government. I shall come to other indicators later, but according to any indicator, Labour-controlled councils do far worse than Conservative ones.
	The fact is that our streets are becoming dirtier, and there is a clear link between urban decay and crime. In a speech in Croydon before the election, the Prime Minister promised to tackle abandoned cars and urban decay, claiming that such issues were
	"at the heart of the government's rights and responsibilities' agenda."
	Yet our streets are becoming dirtier, thanks to the Government's incompetence and poor administration by Labour councils. Dirty streets, graffiti, fly tipping and abandoned cars are all symptoms of urban decay, which has worsened under Labour. The degradation of our neighbourhoods fuels more crime.

Geraint Davies: rose—

Malcolm Moss: A survey by William M. Mercer found that London is the dirtiest capital in Europe.

Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order to make derogatory remarks about Croydon without accepting an intervention from a Member representing the area?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Whether to include such an intervention in the debate is at the discretion of the Member giving the speech.

Malcolm Moss: I made no derogatory remarks about Croydon whatsoever. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) just does not listen. I simply said that the Prime Minister had made a speech in Croydon; I made no remarks about urban decay in Croydon itself—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Malcolm Moss: A survey by William M. Mercer found that London is the dirtiest capital in Europe, second only to Athens. Worldwide, London was ranked as low as 41st, a fall of six places from 2000, when it was 35th. The Government's second survey of national sustainable development indicators found that violent crime, traffic and waste problems were all worsening.
	One key issue, as the Minister herself pointed out, is abandoned cars. The number of malicious vehicle fires has risen year on year, and by 68 per cent. in England since 1997—a key indicator quantifying the problem of burnt-out abandoned cars in local communities. The European Union end-of-life vehicles directive, which will come into effect in April, will mean that the cost of disposing of cars will soar. The Local Government Association estimates that it will now cost £200 to £300 to scrap a car, so most scrap yards will not accept cars without payment. The LGA says that it simply does not know how many more cars are going to be dumped in future.
	Our debate on local communities should cover the new menace of fly-tipped fridges. New EU regulations on the disposal of refrigerators, which the Government signed without fully understanding the implications, have just come into effect, increasing the costs of disposal. Not only are there currently no facilities in the United Kingdom to dispose of fridges according to the new requirement, but the Government have imposed extra costs on councils that could run to more than £100 million a year. The whole debacle is down to ministerial incompetence; no doubt the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on it will be devastating.
	According to Audit Commission figures, local residents are more satisfied with waste collection services, street cleanliness and recycling facilities delivered by Conservative councils. For Members who take a keen interest in such things, I should explain that best value indicator 89 shows that residents in England whose services are provided by Conservative councils are more satisfied with the cleanliness of their streets and neighbourhoods: 68.4 per cent of residents in Conservative-controlled areas are content, compared with 56.9 per cent in Labour-controlled areas. Similarly, best value indicator 90a on waste collection shows that residents are more satisfied with waste collection services provided by Conservative councils: 86.3 per cent are satisfied, compared with 82 per cent. in Labour areas.

Stephen McCabe: Can the hon. Gentleman offer the House an explanation of why the Conservatives are so much better at dealing with rubbish?

Malcolm Moss: I am talking about the best value indicators covering a range of council responsibilities, which were established by the Department and voted for in the House. I am simply demonstrating to hon. Members that all the indicators, as measured by the Audit Commission, show Conservative councils scoring better than Labour councils. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not like.

Adrian Sanders: Is it not the case that Liberal Democrat councils do better than Tory councils, which is why the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned them?

Malcolm Moss: I am happy to give the figures for Liberal Democrat councils, which I omitted—[Interruption.] I was asked a question, and must endeavour to respond. On clean street satisfaction, Liberal Democrat councils scored 63 per cent., compared with 68 per cent. for Conservative councils; on waste collection satisfaction, Liberal Democrat councils scored 84 per cent., compared with 86 per cent. for Conservative councils; on recycling satisfaction, Liberal Democrat councils scored 66 per cent., compared with 70 per cent. for Conservative councils. Need I continue?

Adrian Sanders: No.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman has had enough; good.
	To reduce graffiti and vandalism, Wandsworth borough council has expanded the use of closed circuit television and decoy sites to detect perpetrators, and is developing a voluntary code with retailers to stop the sale of spray cans and marker pens to juveniles. To tackle litter, it has doubled the number of litter bins on local streets to 1,400, all of which are emptied at least once a day.
	I shall now turn to the subject of green spaces and the Green Paper. The Government are forcing local authorities to oversee the construction of millions of houses against local wishes. They have established a series of rigid national housebuilding targets across the country, which are then fed down via regional housebuilding targets to local authorities. Conservatives are opposed to excessive greenfield development. That is not nimbyism; we want to protect our green spaces in the north and the south, in our urban areas and in our countryside. We would abolish regional planning guidance and housebuilding targets, and give those powers back to local councils.
	As for the planning Green Paper, local residents in London and the south-east are to be robbed of their say in local planning decisions. The consultation document outlines the Labour Government's desire to strip local communities of planning powers in a number of areas. We accept that the planning system needs to be reformed, but abolishing south-eastern residents' say in local planning is a retrograde step. Local people will be robbed of their say on large developments such as new airports, incinerators, pylons, large housing estates and power stations. Labour has also given the green light to greenfield destruction on a massive scale.

Clive Betts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Green Paper places great emphasis on the need for full and proper consultation, and that notices stuck on lamp posts by planning authorities should not be seen as a means of consulting the local community? There is also an emphasis on the need for prior consultation before the planning process begins, to make sure that that work goes on in a more relaxed and meaningful way, and to avoid confrontation when the local community suddenly sees a planning proposal at the last minute and rejects it.

Malcolm Moss: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more and better local consultation is necessary. That is what we propose. The opposition to the planning Green Paper has not come from the Conservative Benches alone: the Confederation of British Industry and other bodies, having studied it, are beginning to have serious doubts about it.
	As for transport, we have more traffic and more congestion. Just days after the 1997 general election, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said:
	"I will have failed if in five years time there are not . . . far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it."
	We certainly intend to do so. Despite record fuel taxes, traffic on British motorways has risen by 11 per cent. since 1997, and by 5 per cent. across all roads.
	There is also the problem of London Underground. Before Labour was elected, it promised
	"to improve the Underground . . . and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers",
	but delays on London Underground have almost doubled since Labour came to power. Delays have risen from 4.5 per cent. in 1997–98 to 8.4 per cent. in the last recorded period.

Robert Syms: We spoke earlier about the press release from the Department, which mentions a 30 per cent. fall in public disturbances and street violence in a particular area of Newham. Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that according to Metropolitan police figures in Newham over the past 12 months, street crime has gone up 21 per cent., possession of offensive weapons by 28 per cent., burglary by 12 per cent. and sexual offences by 30 per cent? The press release does not set the figure in context.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It seems that not only are the Government in breach of the code in terms of issuing press releases at this sensitive time, but they cannot even get their press releases accurate.
	London Underground's most recent annual report revealed that the tube had failed on all seven of its performance targets. It failed to meet the required customer satisfaction standards for safety, security, information given to passengers, cleanliness of trains, the helpfulness and availability of station staff, number of train miles run, and the time taken for passengers to reach their destinations.
	Not long after the 1997 election, the Prime Minister said:
	"railways are not a top priority".
	That is from the record of a Cabinet meeting on 8 May 1997. Punctuality and reliability have declined under Labour. The percentage of trains arriving on time has declined from 89.7 per cent. in 1997–98 to 79.1 per cent. in 2000–01. The Minister for Europe, has admitted:
	"we have the worst railways in Europe. We started transport investment far too late."
	Since their election, the Labour Government have spent less in terms of both public investment and public expenditure than the last Conservative Administration. Total managed expenditure on transport as a proportion of gross domestic product totalled 1 per cent. on average between 1997 and 2001, 41 per cent. less than the under last Conservative Administration, who spent 1.7 per cent. of gross domestic product.

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are more people travelling on the tube than ever before? We now have the Croydon tram, which is moving 18 million passengers a year, and many more people are travelling on the railways. There are difficulties, but tens of billions of pounds will go into the tube in the next few years.

Malcolm Moss: The trend in increased use of the railways started under the Conservative Administration as a result of privatisation. That is what led to a substantial increase in the use of the trains.
	On toll taxes—

Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: No, I have only a limited amount of time and I want to press on. I am moving on to toll taxes. [Hon. Members: "Poll taxes?"] No, toll taxes. Ken Livingstone is looking to introduce congestion taxes in central London by 2003. Other councils in England are entering into pilot schemes for congestion taxes or workplace parking taxes.
	The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is working on multi-modal studies examining the possibility of motorway tolls across England. That was revealed in a consultants' report the other week. The Government's 10-year transport plan makes it clear that before introducing such taxes
	"we shall need to take account of the conclusions of the multi-modal studies".
	Only this morning it was leaked that the Prime Minister's transport troubleshooter, Lord Birt, is proposing the increased use of road tolls to fund expenditure in the transport sector and to reduce congestion.
	We believe that toll taxes will merely divert traffic to less suitable roads, increasing congestion and pollution. Residents outside the tax zone will suffer as drivers will drive and park away from the centre of town in residential areas. In London, even Transport for London has admitted that traffic will rise by 8 per cent. in Southwark and 6 per cent. in Lambeth as a result of the diversion of traffic. Toll taxes will not lead to an overall improvement in air quality. Even Ken Livingstone admitted:
	"We expect there to be no significant improvement in air quality directly as a result of congestion charging."
	I now turn to the social services. It is becoming clearer with every day that Labour's mismanagement of the NHS has plunged both the care of the elderly and care homes in particular into crisis. It is clear to anyone with any common sense that a thriving care home sector is crucial to the overall well-being of the health service. There are patients lying in hospital who are fit enough to be discharged, but who remain in hospital solely because there is nowhere for them to go and no money in social service departments of local councils to care for them in their own homes.
	Why is that? Under this Government, a combination of ineptitude and mismanagement has seen the closure of some 50,000 care home beds since 1997. At any one time more than 6,000 hospital beds are occupied by patients whose discharge has been delayed. The Department of Health states that 680,000 patients have their discharges delayed every year. The fact that patients remain in hospital when they could and should be elsewhere means that, through no fault of their own, they occupy precious beds that would otherwise be given to patients requiring operations. No wonder the waiting lists remain stubbornly high. Not only is there a queue to get into hospital under Labour, but Labour has brought us the queue to get out of hospital.
	That speaks volumes about the Government's approach to health more generally. They will never deliver the necessary reforms because they have a deep-rooted antipathy towards private providers. They use the private sector when it suits them, both at home and abroad, but as the Chancellor's statement last week showed, they are totally wedded to a health service funded exclusively from general taxation. They talk about working with the private sector, but in care home provision there is a long-standing relationship between public and private sectors, and the Government are making a complete hash of it.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Moss: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times already.
	Despite the bleak picture, Conservative councils are delivering better quality services for lower taxes. Since 1997 the average band D annual council tax in England has risen by £287—that is, 42 per cent.—under the Labour Government. They have turned council tax into a stealth tax. Vulnerable people such as pensioners on fixed incomes have suffered the most, yet on average across different tiers Conservative councils charge £135 a year less on band D bills than Labour councils, and £159 a year less than Liberal Democrat councils.
	Labour claims that the average council tax is lower in Labour councils. The fact that average council tax bills, rather than the average band D bills, tend to be lower in Labour areas has nothing to do with the spending decisions of those Labour councils. It is merely a reflection of the fact that property values tend to be lower in Labour areas. Peter Kellner has stated:
	"Homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower council tax bands and this was why the average council tax was lower. . . The proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like—Band D figures, council by council".
	He went on to state that Labour's claim
	"is as misleading as it ever was . . . On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right."
	That is a quote from The Sunday Times in 1995. [Laughter.] It is still appropriate. Perhaps the hon. Members who are guffawing, and have been guffawing for most of the morning, would care to write to Peter Kellner to see whether he stands by his quote. The position has not changed since then.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Let us take two local authority areas, Labour and Conservative, that have the same average council tax. House values are likely to be slightly lower in the Labour authority area than under the Conservative authority, so band D will always be different because of the different sorts of houses. It is the average that has to be considered, as it is the amount raised from a given number of properties in an area that is the true test for comparison between councils.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that count. The only true measurement is achieved by comparing the same band; Peter Kellner has endorsed the view that we have taken all along.
	Liberal Democrats claim that council taxes have risen faster this year in Conservative councils and at the lowest rate in Lib Dem councils. Although the Government have turned council tax into a stealth tax—they have hit the shire counties hardest—Conservative councils still charge an average of £159 less on band D bills than Liberal Democrat councils. Across every tier of local government, we deliver better local public services at a lower cost.
	Conservative councillors are making life better through neighbourhood initiatives. According to Audit Commission data—best value indicator 3—Conservative councils have the highest satisfaction rate among local residents. Some 68 per cent. of residents are satisfied under Conservative councils, as opposed to 61 per cent. under Labour. In case the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) wants to leap to his feet, I must also point out that 65 per cent. are satisfied under the Liberal Democrats. People are most satisfied with the Conservatives because we tackle problems such as crime and graffiti and improve the whole range of public services—and still charge lower taxes.
	It is on that basis that I recommend that people vote Conservative in preference to voting for the other parties in next Thursday's local elections.

Tom Cox: I welcome this debate, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber do, but what a contrast between the two opening speeches. We heard from my hon. Friend the Minister a constructive presentation of a range of issues. Her speech was very different from that of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I say to him that I am one of those Labour Members who live in a Tory-controlled local authority area, so I see at first hand the sort of services that the Tories provide to my constituents—a point to which I shall return later. None the less, I am sure that all of us welcome the opportunity to debate the quality of life in our communities and constituencies, and the good and bad points in that regard. The debate will certainly cover many issues.
	As a London Member, I represent the most densely populated part of the United Kingdom. London's population is well over 7 million and it is growing. Many people who come to the UK come to London, and many remain here as residents. Like all hon. Members, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit, Londoners rely on the many services that make London a pleasant place in which to live and work. London is a city with many different standards, both rich and poor. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Battersea (Martin Linton), I represent the London borough of Wandsworth, so I see at first hand what happens in a Tory-controlled borough, which we are often told is a flagship borough.
	Before I deal with that point, I want to mention a number of other issues. Under this Government, unemployment has fallen considerably. Areas such as mine had very high youth unemployment under the Tory Government, but thankfully, due to the current Government's policies and the money that they have put in, although some youngsters are still unemployed, the number has been enormously reduced. We can see real confidence among young people when we meet them and hear them say, "Yes, it is a bit difficult, but I really believe that I'll get a job."
	What concerns me in the area that I represent—I accept that this is a problem not only in London, but in many other parts of the country—is that I regularly see at my advice surgery men and some women who are in their late 40s and early 50s, but who are out of work. Many of them have great skills, but sadly, they are not the skills of today—the modern technology skills that we all know are in demand. Such people come to me and say, "I've got a lot of skill, I am middle aged, and as far as I'm concerned, I've got many years of my working life left. I want to work and not live on benefit." Although the Government have done a great deal to help such people, priority must be given to ensuring that adequate training schemes are available to help men and women in that age group to retrain, so that they can do what they want: re-enter the employment market.
	We all know that so much depends on a person being in work, because their income affects their quality of life, the housing that they can afford and the social life that their families can enjoy. There is a great diversity of skills and talents, but if the community that I represent is to thrive, we cannot afford to allow people's talents to go to waste. I make that point very forcefully to my hon. Friend the Minister, because I do not believe—I am sure that none of my colleagues believes—that a person's age should determine whether he or she can find employment. That applies not only to London, but to anywhere in the United Kingdom.
	Like many other cities and towns, London has ethnic communities. I represent a large Asian community, many of whose members have lived in this country for many years. In many cases, their children were born here. It is estimated that more than 30 per cent. of London's population is of an ethnic background. Such people play a major role in many aspects of life in our society and community, and their quality of life needs to be protected and developed. Good housing and community facilities are important.
	Many members of the ethnic community are elderly and are entitled to expect facilities for community and cultural activities—day centres most especially. I say to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that in the London borough of Wandsworth, which has a large Asian population, I get no help whatever in trying to get modern day centres and luncheon clubs for the ethnic communities in my constituency. He read out a long list of services that Conservative-controlled authorities are supposed to offer to the local community, but as a local Member of Parliament, I see the lack of any constructive help on such key issues. It would have been interesting if he had commented on the difficulties that Labour Members such as my two colleagues and I, who represent the London borough of Wandsworth, experience in dealing with a Conservative-controlled authority when we try to protect services for our communities.
	There are some excellent day centres in my constituency, but sadly, not enough. We tend to forget that ethnic communities have their own forms of worship and want to be able to follow them, as they have a right to do. That can be difficult when dealing with Conservative-controlled authorities such as Wandsworth.
	It is important to develop and encourage business opportunities, especially for young people, who often have good ideas but find it difficult to get started. That affects the quality of life in a community. When areas are run down, shops shut and businesses close, and it affects the whole community. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to that in her opening remarks. I am therefore in favour of helping young people to set up local businesses. When I talk to them, they say that the high rents and rates that local businesses have to pay determine whether they remain in business. Perhaps that affects cities such as London more than other parts of the country.
	I am currently dealing with the case of a young man who has a Chinese restaurant in my constituency. He has a 15-year lease on the property, on which he has been paying rent of £14,000 a year. The rent is up for review and he has been told that he will be asked to pay £23,500 from June this year—an increase of £9,500. He cannot possibly afford that substantial extra sum of money. The negotiations with the owner will determine whether he can remain in business. Young people talk to each other; my constituent talks to other business people in the area where he owns the restaurant. We need to consider the image of setting up in business that such cases present to young people.
	I believe in encouraging young people. Many young people who live in London have an excellent education and a lot of skills, and they need encouragement to start a business. They also need the security of knowing that they will receive a fair opportunity to develop it and will not be told after a year or so, "Sorry, you're not meeting your overheads. We will therefore have to cease loaning you money", because that means that the business will close.

Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Enterprise Bill, which is in Committee, will go a long way towards supporting start-up businesses and tackling some of the problems of potential bankruptcy that he describes?

Tom Cox: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. To their credit, the Government are pursuing the matter, and the measure will help the sort of case to which I referred. People face genuine difficulties in setting up businesses, but the Government are taking the matter seriously and introducing measures to help.
	London has an ageing population, and the borough that I represent has approximately 40,000 retired people. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made almost never-ending criticisms of the Government, but they have done a great deal for retired people through their policies and benefits. I am sure that pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would agree.
	We all accept that the weekly pension is important, but so is quality of life. More than 13 per cent. of London's population is over 65. When one visits day centres or goes out campaigning on issues—I am not talking only about elections that may be due in the near future—and speaks to retired people, one is soon filled with their ideas and hopes. They include a decent place in which to live. Again, it is difficult in the London borough of Wandsworth to find such places for retired people.
	We need a great deal more sheltered housing that provides security and allows people to keep their independence. We need more pleasant open spaces with good provision in the areas where retired people live. Again, it is difficult to get that in the borough that I represent. In a few moments, I shall comment at length on another aspect of housing in Wandsworth because I may want the help and support of my hon. Friend the Minister.
	Many hon. Members may agree with my next comments on a key aspect of the quality of life that people can enjoy. Retired people often tell me that when they go out shopping or walking, they would like to know where there are benches on which they can sit and perhaps meet their friends and have a chat. It is difficult for retired people to find benches in the areas where they live or go for a walk. Such provision would be of great benefit without costing an enormous amount of money. Lack of toilet facilities is more of an issue for local authorities than for the Government, but local residents often mention it to me. Many retired people would like more such facilities. Some might claim that those are not especially big issues, but they contribute to the quality of life for many people.
	My hon. Friend the Minister rightly spoke at length about crime and a range of related matters. Sadly, under all Governments, we hear about appalling crimes in our society. It is not a political issue, and it is regrettable that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tried to make it one.
	It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

ITV Digital

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on ITV Digital. As the House knows, the ITV Digital administrator, Deloitte Touche, announced yesterday that it is preparing for the short-term sale of the business and its assets. This is an issue that has reverberations far beyond the boardroom of ITV Digital. It directly affects the million ITV Digital subscribers, the company's staff, its creditors, its programme suppliers and the clubs, fans and supporters of the Nationwide Football League.
	The Government too, have a direct interest. We are concerned for those millions of people and hundreds of businesses who are watching closely to see whether they will be able to recover something from the sale of the company. That is why it was a great pity that ITV Digital was not able to come to a deal that was acceptable to the Football League, one of its biggest creditors. I have spent much of the last few weeks seeking to encourage all the parties to the talks on restructuring to keep the company going, to keep negotiating and to keep talking. But this week, time ran out for ITV Digital and its creditors, and now the usual commercial processes must take their course. As this is a complex and fluid situation, I want to make clear to the House my willingness to ensure that the House is updated in coming weeks.
	I would like to set out for the House the next steps in what has been a confusing—and is still, in some respects, an uncertain—process. For the time being, ITV Digital subscribers are continuing to receive a service, including the free-to-view services enjoyed by all digital viewers. But the ITV Digital pay services will last only as long as the company's suppliers are willing to continue to supply their programmes and services. That will depend on negotiations currently under way between the suppliers and the administrators. It is possible that some suppliers will have no choice but to withdraw their programmes.
	If and when the service for which the licences have been granted ceases to be provided, and the licensee no longer fulfils the terms of its licences, the Independent Television Commission will begin the process of revocation of the licences for the digital terrestrial multiplexes formerly used by ITV Digital. Having revoked the licences, the ITC will then re-advertise them in an accelerated process that is likely to take six weeks. In the meantime, the administrator is arranging for all existing subscribers to be kept informed of the position by on-air announcements and by personal letter. That is obviously vital. ITV Digital subscribers are innocent parties in this matter, and they deserve to be given all the advice and information possible while the administrator and others work to preserve their TV service for the future.
	Looking to the end of this stage, I understand that the administrator remains confident that a sale of the business can be achieved. I have, of course, received representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Martin Linton), for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), and from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), relating to their concerns for the more than 1,500 members of staff affected. We all recognise that this is an anxious and uncertain time for the staff, but they are being extremely well served by the representations of their Members of Parliament. I am confident that the free-to-air services will remain in place without disruption, and it is important to remember that about 60 per cent. of the ITV Digital subscriber base take only free-to-air services.
	I shall now turn to the situation facing football. As the House will be aware, ITV Digital entered into a contract with the Nationwide Football League. The TV rights to broadcast Football League matches were reported to have been sold to ITV Digital for £315 million. I understand that the Football League has so far received £137 million from the contract, and that £178 million therefore remains outstanding. It was an important object of the negotiations in recent weeks between the Football League and ITV Digital—and, subsequently, its administrators—to reach a settlement on this matter. Clearly, the failure of ITV Digital to meet its contract with the football clubs will be a further blow for the many clubs that are already facing financial difficulties.
	I welcome the fact that the chief executive of the Football Association—the governing body for the game—will bring together the various organisations with the power to help to navigate football and the clubs through this difficult time. I have obviously been in contact with the chief executives of the FA, the Premier League and the Nationwide League. The Government will offer all support to the efforts of that FA-led group. Supporters Direct, established by the Government in 1998, has already helped 31 of the 72 Football League clubs by enabling supporters to invest through supporters' trusts. We expect that Supporters Direct will take a prominent role in helping to secure the future of clubs over the coming months.
	In many communities, football clubs are a powerful force for good. They are a source of local identity and of local pride. Many of them run successful programmes to get people involved in the sport and to help them to develop their talent. Many also use the sport to attract young people into education and positive involvement in the community. The anti-racist and social cohesion work through the football in the community and the playing for success schemes, run in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills, are two powerful examples of the way in which this works in practice.
	It is important to be clear that football has not asked the Government to bail it out financially, but we want to do all that we can to offer clubs support at this difficult time. As I have mentioned, I have been in regular contact with representatives of the various relevant football organisations, and we will continue to offer help to clubs in terms of support to players and staff who find themselves out of a job. Just this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport had a very positive discussion with the football authorities and Sport England to ensure that the resources are provided to secure the future of the football youth development programme.
	I shall now outline the circumstances facing digital television in the wake of the collapse of ITV Digital. Yesterday's announcement represents the collapse of a brave commercial enterprise to launch an entirely new digital platform. The business made commercial judgments that have turned out to be unsuccessful. Of course, there is always a risk in such ventures, especially in relation to markets built on new technology. This is, however, essentially a private matter between the company and its creditors. The Government's role is to protect the wider public interest. Apart from regular contact with the companies concerned, I have been in day-by-day contact with the Independent Television Commission, whose responsibility it is to regulate the commercial broadcasters. My aim in all this has been to keep a discussion going, and to keep the parties talking about how to maintain a service for digital terrestrial viewers.
	More broadly, the Government have helped to create a very good climate for digital TV in the UK. Twice the number of UK homes have access to digital television as the European average. We should be proud of that. Thanks to Government action, digital TV has grown faster in this country than the take-up of mobile phones, the internet and even colour television.
	We have created an excellent regulatory framework for digital television, and ITV Digital in particular. Our digital action plan provides the route map to digital switchover by 2010, bringing together industry, broadcasters and consumers—the key players, who will make switchover happen.
	All material obstacles to improving the power of transmission, and thereby the quality, have been removed, subject to the need to prevent interference with existing analogue signals.
	Carlton and Granada, the owners of ITV Digital, were assisted by a rebate on the tax levy on their analogue Channel 3 licences for every household to which they provided digital services. This rebate—the digital dividend—is worth tens of millions of pounds. In addition, our settlement for the BBC licence fee has enabled the BBC to expand its output of digital television services.
	As a result, digital television in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any comparable country and is received by 40 per cent. of UK households. No country in the world has done more to nurture the digital revolution, and no country has seen such success as a result. Britain is a world leader in digital technology and digital reach.
	We have very good reasons, even at this difficult time, to be positive about the future as new cheap set-top boxes come on to the market and scope increases for improved picture and reception quality. We expect to see these roll out as soon as the current uncertainty is resolved. As I have made clear, I expect that uncertainty to be resolved within a few weeks.
	The hard truth is that this is a failure of a company, not a technology. New entrants will deal with a better understood technology and an established infrastructure. My contact with the industry suggests that established and new industry players want to have a go at making this proposition work. They will either go forward to the administrator or firm up their expressions of interest as part of any ITC re-tendering of the licences.
	I also commend the work of the administrator, who has acted throughout with forbearance and professionalism.
	In conclusion, the Government have always made it clear that the switchover process must be driven by consumer demand. In any new technology, there are bumps on route, and this has been one. However, I agree with the Consumers Association that the most important thing is to restore certainty and predictability for customers so that they can make their own, informed choices.
	It is clear that digital terrestrial television has an important role to play in the digital future. It is a natural migration path for analogue viewers who are accustomed to receiving their television services through their aerials and it is potentially universal in its availability. This platform must continue, to ensure that all viewers have a full range of options in a competitive and dynamic environment.
	Digital television has the potential to bring enormous opportunities and benefits to families all over the country. Digital households enjoy a wide range of channels and a wide range of additional benefits including interactive programming, information services that provide education and entertainment and even access to the internet.
	The success of DTT should not be equated with the position of one commercial operator. The fact that ITV Digital has not succeeded will not deflect the Government, consumers and the broadcasting industry from making a reality of the digital future. Digital television, and the promise it holds, is more than ITV Digital.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for making it available to me before she delivered it to the House. I also welcome her assurance that she will continue to update Parliament in the coming weeks as this crisis evolves.
	I entirely share the right hon. Lady's concern for ITV Digital subscribers—I happen to be one—the company's employees, the creditors and suppliers and, of course, the football clubs and millions of football fans.
	The truth is that nobody emerges from this ghastly mess with credit. Carlton and Granada are walking away from a problem that they are partly responsible for creating, and the unrealistic expectations of the Football League leave many football clubs facing a bleak future. Above all, the Government, who must decide when their stated goal of digital switchover will occur, cannot continue shrugging off all responsibility for the crisis. Complacent self-congratulation of the sort that we have just heard about the Government's role in promoting digital television is no substitute for the actions that are urgently needed. Everybody in the industry has known for months that this crisis has been brewing, yet the Government have so far done nothing to address the problem or lay the foundations for a solution. The result of that failure is that Britain's leadership of the digital television revolution is at risk. Our chance of dominating one of the 21st century's most promising industries is in danger of being thrown away.
	If digital switchover is to be achieved by 2010, or indeed by a later date, it is essential that a viable digital terrestrial television platform operates alongside the satellite and cable platforms. Only in that way can the public interest be properly served and protected. Unless a replacement for ITV Digital is found quickly, public confidence in digital terrestrial television will drain away. Indeed, the Government's slowness in tackling the problem of poor-quality digital terrestrial television reception by increasing the strength of the signal has already seriously damaged public confidence.
	Furthermore, many consumers are confused about digital television. Nearly all new television sets sold this year are analogue, yet the Government have done nothing to educate the public about what is happening. Instead, they allow consumers to go on buying equipment that the Government's stated policies will render obsolete within eight years, without any warning given to the consumer at the point of sale.
	The Secretary of State has been in post for more than 10 months, long enough to have thought carefully about the important issues involved. I should like her to answer some simple questions that were not addressed in her statement. First—and this is regardless of the outcome of the present negotiations—will she publish a clear timetable setting out, step by step, when and how the existing digital terrestrial television signal will be strengthened and its geographical reach increased? Secondly—again, regardless of the outcome of the present crisis—will she mount a public information campaign to ensure that all consumers understand the difference between analogue and digital television and between satellite, cable and terrestrial television and that they are aware of the implications of Government policy when it comes to the television sets that they own and those they are thinking of buying?
	Thirdly, to assist the present talks to a successful outcome as quickly as possible, will the right hon. Lady make it clear whether she believes that digital terrestrial television should consist exclusively of free-to-air channels or a mixture of free-to-air and pay television? In that context, does she recognise that many people cannot and probably never will be able to access satellite or cable television for various reasons and will therefore depend on digital terrestrial television to enjoy the wider choice of channels that are available to people willing to subscribe?
	Since the end of the consultation period following publication of the Government's document just before Christmas, they have been notably silent on how they will apply the rules on media and cross-media ownership. Will the right hon. Lady explain how she intends to apply those rules in finding a replacement for ITV Digital as soon as possible? Will she say whether she believes that the ITC should re-allocate the multiplexes that ITV Digital surrenders as a single package or individually? Will she say how she thinks that the process of re-allocating the multiplexes relates to the sale of ITV Digital's assets?
	Will the right hon. Lady review the Government's timetable to achieve the goal of digital switchover by 2010? Does she agree that some of the potential benefits of digital television will be lost if the set-top boxes that convert sets from analogue to digital cannot accommodate a pay-television upgrade option? Does she share the concerns of some people that, if the BBC or Sky were to emerge as the dominant player in the new digital terrestrial television platform, excessive power would be concentrated in the hands of organisations whose market dominance is already considerable? Will she explain how the BBC charter and her agreement as Secretary of State with the BBC may affect the BBC's role in helping to find a solution to the present crisis?
	On the future of football, fans will study the right hon. Lady's statement with interest, but in vain for anything other than warm words and expressions of sympathy. Will she confirm therefore that the Government do not intend to take any practical steps to assist football clubs, even those that may now face bankruptcy?
	The broadcasting industry and all those who believe that the future lies with digital television will have been disappointed by today's statement—the uncertainty continues and the Government's lack of leadership and commitment remain as stark as ever.

Tessa Jowell: Let me work my way through the Opposition spokesman's questions, and provide answers. The hon. Gentleman's questions reveal an extraordinary degree of ignorance of the crisis about which he claims to be so concerned. First, most of the information that he seeks is set out in the digital action plan—the route map that identifies the roles of the Government, broadcasters, consumers and the industry between now and the point at which switchover is achieved, subject to meeting the tests that have been clearly set out. Secondly, as part of the digital action plan, the market preparation group is promoting information material for consumers, working with consumer organisations. We will be led by their judgment on when is the right to moment to launch a public information campaign.
	In relation to the digital terrestrial platform, yes, the Government's position is to promote competition between platforms to develop consumer choice and therefore to enable the possibility that each platform has a combination of free-to-air and pay services. The general expectation is that, as digital television develops, each platform will develop a different identity, depending on consumer preference and consumer choice, but the intention is that DTT should be a free-to-air and a pay platform.
	If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to check, he would have been able to clarify the points about the extent of light-touch regulation in relation to multiplex ownership, the regulation of which was considerably lightened by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Multiplex ownership does not involve any restrictions in relation to cross-media or non-European ownership, so multiplex ownership is not constrained in the way that other aspects of the media are subject to media ownership rules.
	The hon. Gentleman often makes the point about the transmission signal. Again, that is a pity; he betrays his ignorance. The responsibility for turning up the signal and determining the level sits with the ITC, which approves the increases, and the broadcasters, which are responsible for the transmission network. The broadcasters, rather than the Government, are responsible for the transmission network because the Government whom he supported were responsible for privatising the network under their 1996 legislation.
	Having said that, the first stage of power increase has already been established, benefiting 25 per cent. of the population. Approval has now been given for broadcasters to proceed with a further increase in power to cover 50 per cent. of the population, but that involves a highly technical set of judgments given the fact that, as a Government, we decided very early on in announcing the digital switchover policy that the interests of analogue viewers had to be protected as the digital technology rolls out. So the position is clear: the signal strength has been increased. There is absolutely no regulatory obstacle to the success and survival of the digital terrestrial platform.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point related to football clubs. Again, in addition to ITV Digital subscribers, there are very large numbers of innocent victims. The Government will work alongside football to provide practical help, largely through grassroots organisations and Supporters Direct, which has been very successful in establishing fans' trusts as a better way to manage clubs and in helping clubs that recently and before this crisis suffered difficulty. So I am proud of the Government's record, which is one of innovation, progressive action and, most importantly, practical action to protect the interests of consumers and football fans throughout the country, rather than that of the Opposition's uninformed carping on the sidelines.

Adrian Sanders: This is a sorry state of affairs not only for the subscribers, but for professional football and the technology industry, especially digital platforms. It is also a sorry state of affairs for those communities that have lost jobs, most notably Plymouth, . That will have an impact on the south-west economy.
	In advance of this statement, several news reports in the last 24 hours have mentioned the contribution that BSkyB has made to the difficulties that ITV Digital has experienced. I should like to ask the Secretary of State when she expects the Office of Fair Trading to make a decision on the alleged behaviour of BSkyB in relation to competition law.
	We have been very fortunate in some respects in having more than one digital platform in this country. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can point to any other country in the world with two commercially viable digital platforms. I also wonder whether our expectations—or at least the time scales of those expectations—have been too optimistic thus far. Does not this episode demonstrate that the only likely success of digital television in the future is as a free-to-air platform? Will she encourage the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to get together perhaps to consider the viability of providing such a platform? In the light of this latest information, what is her advice to anyone perhaps considering buying a digital television this weekend?
	The Government have placed enormous importance on football as an engine for economic regeneration in many communities, some of which are particularly disadvantaged. For many years, many professional football teams have run at a deficit. It is often a hand-to-mouth exercise depending on one benefactor, which is not ideal. I applaud the Government's work on helping supporters' trusts to get off the ground, but they are on a small scale and money is limited. Football clubs in many communities fear that they may not appear on the fixture list next season.
	The Government have a role to play, if not in funding, in acting as a broker between football clubs and television companies, and between the Nationwide Football League clubs and the Premiership. For too long, far too many of the resources available to football have been sucked up by the premier division, and now the Nationwide League clubs are in dire straits. Perhaps some of the resources in the Premiership should be directed towards the Nationwide League. The Government should have a role in trying to ensure that the money in football is more equitably distributed.

Dennis Skinner: More spending from the Liberals.

Tessa Jowell: Yes, I spotted the spending commitments.
	I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for making those points. I expect the OFT to reach a conclusion on its considerations soon.
	On the DTT platform, it is the Government's clear intention to maintain the policy of encouraging three platforms with competition between them—therefore, platform neutrality—to promote the range of choice for consumers. The circumstances facing ITV Digital are a good justification for that policy, which gives my constituent or the hon. Gentleman's constituent who wants to buy a digital television set this weekend the choice of two other platforms if they do not want to take a short-term risk with DTT.
	On football, we will work closely with the FA-led group that is considering football's position following the collapse of ITV Digital. I welcome the leadership that football is showing, because the hon. Gentleman is right that the financial base of many clubs is unsustainable—their commitment to their players' wages bills is not matched by their income. Football recognises that problem, and must address it and the other problems that he identifies.
	We shall provide support through the efforts of Supporters Direct, which was introduced by the Government and is supported by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. It is doing excellent work to link fans more directly with the financial security and future of their clubs.

Chris Smith: On football, I strongly endorse my right hon. Friend's comments about the work of Supporters Direct. In this crisis that faces Nationwide League clubs, will she ensure that modest additional resources are made available to Supporters Direct to enable it to assist fans in clubs around the country that may be affected?
	On the future of digital broadcasting, does she agree that the most important objective is to ensure that the digital terrestrial platform survives and thrives into the future? Without that, the overall change from analogue to digital that we hope will occur within the next few years will have no chance of success.
	To assist in that, will she encourage a consortium of public service broadcasters and subscription broadcasters to come together to consider the possibilities as regards bidding for a re-advertised franchise for the multiplexes? Will she particularly encourage them not to contest head to head with satellite broadcasting, but to put forward a more modest programme of channels and programmes that are available to viewers at a more modest cost? That might become a serious financially viable proposition.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments.
	We will keep under close review the ability of Supporters Direct to do the job that football desperately needs it to do. Obviously, it will be closely involved in the discussions within the FA.
	It is of course vital that DTT survives in future, for all the reasons that I have given.
	On my right hon. Friend's final point, it is highly likely that the shape of the offering on the DTT platform will become more distinctive than it has been to date. Competition and other factors make the case for that argument. However, I am sure that he understands that it is not my role to act as a broker for potential bidders. If and when the licences are advertised and re-tendered, it is the role of the ITC, as regulator, to consider those bids within the clear regulatory framework that has been established. That healthy environment was created partly as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend, whose vision and commitment when he was Secretary of State established the framework for our country's digital policy.

Laurence Robertson: It is ironic that this statement takes place in the middle of a debate about local communities. As the Secretary of State rightly says, football clubs throughout the land are vital to communities, and this is a sad situation.
	The Secretary of State touched on the future of football but, perhaps understandably, concentrated on the overall impact on the digital service. Will she return to football and give a few more details of how exactly she is working with the FA to try to rescue the clubs? Will that involve the renegotiation of contracts with players or trying to get commercial support for football clubs?

Tessa Jowell: The discussions with the FA, the Premier League and the Nationwide League are just beginning, so it would be premature for me to set out in detail the contribution that the Government intend to make. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport had a meeting this week to discuss the future of programmes for young people, and I have already explained the important role of Supporters Direct. We shall keep in close contact with the football authorities in the coming weeks.
	It is important never to forget that football is very resilient because of the love and support of the fans of clubs all over the country. Football has faced severe financial difficulties on previous occasions—for example, following the Taylor report and the Bosman ruling—and we should have confidence that with the leadership that has been offered it will negotiate this difficulty.

Kate Hoey: Has my right hon. Friend had any formal or informal discussions with the chairman of Carlton or the chairman of Granada who, ultimately, no matter what they say, are ultimately responsible for this break of contract and lack of faith? In particular, does she find it a little bit difficult that the chairman of Granada, Charles Allen, is the chairman of the Commonwealth games, and is going round asking people to give money to promote those games while he heads a company that has reneged on its contract and done football down? I accept, of course, as many hon. Members have said, that football itself must bear some of that responsibility.

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I have met the chairmen and chief executives of Carlton and Granada as part of the series of meetings that I have had over the past weeks. Obviously, all the commercial aspects of the consequences of the decision to sell ITV Digital are now a matter between them and the administrator and, in relation to regulatory issues, the ITC.
	I hope and believe that the Commonwealth games will be a great success, and Charles Allen has made a very important contribution to that. I hope that I have made it clear to the House today that I recognise the difficulties facing Carlton and Granada and the consequences of those difficulties. However, no one should doubt the part that Charles Allen will have played in delivering a successful Commonwealth games.

Robert Syms: The history might have been different had BSkyB been part of the original consortium, but competition law, of course, precluded it from being so. Given the changed situation, is BSkyB still precluded from having an impact on the future of ITV Digital in receivership?
	In the Budget the Government cracked down on tax relief on films, because television companies were using it extensively to make programmes. The Treasury now expects to take £500 million, principally from the television industry, over the next three years. Does the Secretary of State consider that that will have any impact on the financial background of television companies and their ability to sort out this situation?

Tessa Jowell: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands, who bids in the event that the licences are re-advertised, or who bids for the new licences, or who buys the company are matters for the ITC and the administrator, with reference to the Competition Commission as necessary, so I have nothing to add to that. In relation to the tax changes announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, we are in discussion with Treasury Ministers about their application and in discussion with the industry, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

Jackie Lawrence: My right hon. Friend mentioned in her statement the fact that 1,000 people in Pembrokeshire will lose their jobs unless an alternative buyer is found to operate digital pay TV. Will she please impress on the ITC the need to speed up the licence transfer process to encourage another buyer to come forward, in the hope that we can preserve those jobs? Will she, in her discussions, bear it in mind that the 1,000 jobs in west Wales and 700 jobs in Plymouth and the livelihoods of those people are far more important than the bleating of a few wealthy football chairmen, whose intransigence and stubbornness seems to have brought this situation to crisis point?

Tessa Jowell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her unstinting efforts on behalf of her constituents to mitigate the effects of a very difficult and uncertain time for them. That difficulty and uncertainty is likely to continue for days and possibly weeks, but I recognise what she says about the importance of a speedy resolution. For that reason, the ITC has said that if the licences have to be re-advertised and re-tendered, that will happen within an accelerated time scale of about six weeks. Obviously, everyone involved needs some certainty—not least my hon. Friend's constituents, who are wondering whether they will have a job in two weeks.

Martin Linton: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. As she mentioned, 150 employees at the headquarters in Battersea were made redundant on Monday, along with about 80 field staff, but there are still about 250 at the headquarters, and I spoke to some of them this morning. They are very grateful for the period of grace that they still have, and for any attempts to find a buyer or a consortium that can take over the company.
	The football contract is certainly seen by everyone as a very important element in precipitating the crisis, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the company regards the fundamental issues as being technical and competitive? They are technical in the sense that, despite the Government's best efforts, the reach of the transmitters has still been much less than expected and the strength of the signal has been an enormous problem. It is about 20 times higher in Australia, even after all the efforts that have been made. The company would ascribe to those technical factors the fact that it had 1.2 million customers instead of about 2 million.
	There were also competitive problems. Sky is of course required to make its platform available, but ITV has been paying more than the retail price for that and that extra cost has been a huge element in the crisis. In many other countries, such an arrangement would be regarded as predatory pricing. I understand that a complaint has been lodged with the OFT. There is also a lawsuit in the United States over the switchcard.
	The Secretary of State may not be able to comment on those issues, but those to whom I spoke this morning earnestly hope that further action is taken on those that are essential to the future of the whole digital platform, not just the future of ITV Digital, and those over which the regulator and Government have power.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has made great efforts to explain the uncertainty felt by his constituents who are employed by ITV Digital, arising from its collapse. He also mentioned two important issues to which we have already referred, the first being the need to improve the technology by increasing signal strength. I have made the position clear on that. The second issue is the need to extend coverage so that viewers can get a picture of equally high quality whether they are watching the commercial channels or the public service broadcasting channels, particularly the BBC. The need to address those requirements is being driven by the ITC as regulator. The importance of those issues is why those regulatory and technical obstacles in a new and emerging technology have been addressed with such success.
	Finally, my hon. Friend was absolutely right when he referred to the various aspects that touch on the role of the competition authority. They sit fairly and squarely with the authority and he understands that it would not be right for me to comment.

Dennis Skinner: Does not the Minister find it reprehensible that those television companies that in the past 20 or 30 years or more have been making money hand over fist—they have had a licence to print money—can engage in a contract and then blithely walk away when it does not suit them because they are going to lose money? What steps can we take as a Government to ensure that they foot the bill, especially in regard to the 1,700 people who are bound to lose their jobs?
	In the absence of any proposals from the Tories, who just had 10 questions, or the Liberals, who had a few spending commitments but no proposals, will the Minister consider the unthinkable? Is there any legal, financial or economic impediment to the BBC's stepping in as a rescue act, not to line the pockets of football chairmen or anyone else but to ensure that some or all of these jobs are saved?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend makes points that many people will sympathise with. However, the facts are that the demise of this commercial company is a matter for the company, its creditors and the administrator. It is the Government's role to provide assistance with the consequences, not to intervene directly in what is a commercial contract between Carlton and Granada and the Football League, or in the relationship between Carlton and Granada and the creditors of ITV Digital. However, I am sure that companies facing these circumstances and the resulting damage understand the importance of their reputation and the way in which they conduct themselves in these very difficult times.
	At the moment, the BBC is clearly one of the contributors to the digital terrestrial platform, and we expect that to continue. If and when the licences are re-advertised, we hope that bids will come from a very wide range of potential providers of programme services on that platform, and the ITC will be looking for such bids.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the fact that in the general sense, football clubs and football itself are at least partly the author of their own misfortunes, given the unsustainable salaries that clubs have been paying. However, in this case it was probably not unreasonable for clubs to enter into contracts beyond the end of this season, given the basis of the Football League's contract with ITV Digital. In keeping with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whatever the legal arguments, is it not unacceptable for companies of the status of Carlton and Granada to stand idly by and watch communities in fear of the loss of their football clubs? Have not these companies at least a moral obligation? Is it right for them to reap the benefit of the digital dividend, while at the same time seeking to wash their hands of the consequences for football of the collapse of a company of which they were joint owners?

Tessa Jowell: As the Government, we have to operate within the constraints of the legal contract as it stands. My hon. Friend expresses a frustration that will be reflected by football fans and clubs up and down the country, but the fact is that the contract between ITV Digital and the Football League existed. The matter may be the subject of litigation, so it would be unwise of me—even on the Floor of the House—to say any more than the fact that it is a great pity that a resolution was not achieved, and that football is so very heavily out of pocket.

Lawrie Quinn: Having listened closely to the Secretary of State's statement, Members will know that discussions have taken place with the management of football clubs. Has any contact been made with the Professional Footballers Association, however, particularly given that the lion's share—a suitable phrase in English terms—of the costs associated with football are generated by the players' wage bills?

Tessa Jowell: I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier remarks about the football authorities' welcome recognition of the need to address the financial insecurity that many clubs now face. Although that insecurity was in part created by the immediate crisis arising from the failure of ITV Digital, it is more deep rooted and long standing than that. Obviously, the PFA will be an important party to any successful resolution of those discussions.

Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Carlton and Granada have refused to fund an orderly transfer and sale to new owners, thus pulling the plug not just on football clubs—including non-English clubs such as Cardiff City, which is in this weekend's play-offs—but on the 1,000 jobs to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) referred? Indeed, the loss of those jobs will also affect the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger).

Tessa Jowell: Obviously, the more orderly the sale of the company, the better for everybody, but it is not for me to comment on the conduct of negotiations between the administrator, Carlton and Granada, and ITV Digital.

Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if a consumer buys a holiday in good faith and the company goes bust, they get their money back. Holiday companies must hold a bond or insurance, because the regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority—requires it. Will she and her colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry at least consider establishing a bonding regime in this fast-growing, high-risk and competitive marketplace, so that consumers who subscribe to services in good faith can have some protection from the private operators that take big risks at their expense?

Tessa Jowell: Without making a particular judgment on my hon. Friend's proposal, I can assure the House that, in the weeks ahead, all those with an interest in securing the future of the digital terrestrial platform, its consumers and employees will be looking at the lessons that can be learned from the events of the past two weeks surrounding the collapse of ITV Digital. Those lessons will be studied closely, and applied where relevant.

Local Communities

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kemp.]

Tom Cox: We have listened to an important statement, and, given its length, I shall—in fairness to parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House who wish to participate in the debate—curtail greatly my intended speech.
	In closing, I want to refer to an issue that relates to my constituency, but which is also relevant to the experiences of my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Putney. I want to mention it now as I may well turn to the Minister for advice and support in the coming weeks.
	London Members are fully aware that one great problem we face is that of affordable housing, whether to rent or to buy. It is a particular problem for key public workers in our constituencies. Last Friday, I met prison officers at Wandsworth prison. We talked about many issues, but in terms of the recruitment and retention of prison officers, one key issue for them is the lack of housing.
	There are people in my constituency—people who were born in the borough—who need housing and who are on the housing list, but who are getting absolutely nowhere with Wandsworth council in securing the kind of accommodation that they and their families believe they are entitled to. My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Putney can doubtless say the same. In fact, many of those people are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There is no doubt that their quality of life is suffering because of the lack of suitable housing.
	I turn to my main point, on which, as I said, I may seek the Minister's help. Wandsworth council plans to sell off a piece of land of more than 1 acre at the Ernest Bevin college in my constituency, as it is surplus to needs. I understand that the council has given planning permission to build houses on that site and there are many inquiries about the land. A local housing association that I have long been associated with has told the council that it is interested in purchasing the land and that it would take people from the council housing list to be tenants of the properties that it would build.
	I have been told that Wandsworth council is not interested in that offer because it wants to sell the land to a private developer. It has been apparent for years to those who live in the Tory-controlled borough how detrimental its policies are to constituents. That relates to what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said.
	The Tory-controlled London borough of Wandsworth has no interest in providing social housing either to rent or to buy. Local people ask me as their Member of Parliament what action the council will take on the development of that land. If the local housing association is given permission to develop it, many people—possibly several hundred—would be able to live in a pleasant part of my constituency by either renting the property or paying an affordable price to purchase it. Without doubt, their quality of life, and that of their families, would improve greatly. That is why the issue is so important.
	The constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has suffered more than mine from up-market housing development, which is always fully supported by the Tory-controlled council. However, I got involved in dealing with a scheme to build up-market housing in my area after plans to turn the psychiatric hospital in Tooting Bec into a shopping centre were turned down. The council instantly moved in and gave permission for developers to build the most up-market housing development imaginable. It had no concern whatever for the needs of local people.
	The debate has been useful. We have been given the opportunity to cover a range of issues. Although I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to my comments today, I will be in touch with her to see what help she and her Department can give me and my constituents to ensure that the views and needs of the local community on that housing development are listened to because, sadly, the Tory council in Wandsworth has not done that in recent years.

Adrian Sanders: According to statistics published by the urban taskforce, one in four citizens of urban areas believe that their neighbourhood has got worse in recent years, whereas only one in 10 people feel that they have seen improvement. The Government have recognised that by directing funding at inner cities to try to improve them, but the scale of the task ahead and the small sums of money that have been committed have not stopped the migration from our inner cities to our suburbs and smaller towns. That has been the trend in recent years and we should pay attention to it.
	The outward flow from our main conurbations has many implications for the quality of life in surrounding communities. It has priced many people out of their local housing markets and put increased pressure on greenfield sites, yet 1.3 million commercial and residential buildings stand empty, and brownfield sites are drastically under-utilised.
	Not only is the land and housing supply under severe strain but, as more people move further out of cities, transport is inevitably affected as well. The increasing number of cars on our roads and passengers on our trains is not due to the fact that the roads have improved or that the trains are cheaper, but because more people need to travel and commuting time has increased. It is already 40 per cent. higher than it was 20 years ago, and now, more than ever, people are moving over to a commuter lifestyle.
	It is predicted that car traffic will increase by a third in the next 20 years, and pollution, congestion and general inconvenience can only increase as a result. Progress must be made to improve urban communities to halt the exodus from the nation's larger cities and towns. At the same time, we must improve our smaller cities and towns so that they can accommodate the new growth. Although the quality of life in local communities can be improved on many fronts, one of our most important priorities is to ensure that everyone has a place to live and that housing is of the highest possible quality.
	Local councils can make a difference if they are given the opportunity. As housing needs vary greatly from place to place, greater discretion should be given to local authorities to invest directly or to attract investment in housing that is appropriate for their community. In addition, they should be given the power to set greenfield development levies, which can be put towards the reclamation of brownfield sites. By equalising the VAT charged on new build and refurbishment expenditure we can make renovation a more attractive option, and by strengthening the powers of compulsory purchase orders we can encourage the practice of putting empty buildings back into use.
	It is imperative that we provide more homes, but we cannot ignore the fact that many existing homes are in dire need of maintenance and repair. Addressing that problem would improve the quality of life of countless citizens nationwide. When the Liberal Democrats took control of the London borough council of Islington, there was a £500 million backlog of housing repairs. Some estates had not been painted for 20 years. The situation is now much improved because the council has implemented a new 24-hour-a-day emergency repair service. It has also given council tenants the right to get repairs done themselves and to bill the council if it has not arranged for those repairs to be carried out in a timely manner.
	Another key issue that needs to be addressed locally is safety and security in the community. When people feel unsafe walking about their own town, they cannot possibly enjoy a high quality of life. Even in areas where violent crime is not an issue, antisocial behaviour and nuisance crimes can impact severely on citizens' day-to-day lives. Clearly, more full-time police officers are needed, and the sooner the better, but there are other possibilities for dealing with smaller-scale offences. For instance, the establishment of community safety forces to co-ordinate the efforts of traffic wardens, estate and neighbourhood wardens, park superintendents and other public safety officials could help to foster a unified campaign against nuisance crimes.

Stephen McCabe: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. However, in view of those remarks, how does he justify the behaviour of his Liberal colleagues in the other place, who last night voted against the proposals on which he is commenting?

Adrian Sanders: I think that they were concerned with a different issue—that of giving certain powers of enforcement to those who would carry out that job. Their opinion was that the Government had not fully thought that through. In principle, the Liberal Democrats support community officers and community security forces.
	We also need to bring more flexibility to the police force and to find alternative staffing options to help fill some of the gaps left by inadequate numbers of police officers. One idea is to introduce a new category of part-time community officers. That would help alleviate the pressure on full-time officers and lay the foundation for a network of named local police officers for every community.
	Another option that has been successfully implemented by Liverpool city council is to rent extra police officers from the local police authority. Those extra officers have been used to reinforce the patrolling of Liverpool's busy city centre, and have had an impact on shoplifting and crime in that area. Such ideas should not be taken up by every local authority. Liberal Democrats sometimes take issue with the Government for saying that particular initiatives should be adopted everywhere—our view is that we should allow local areas to come up with the best ideas and let them flow from the grass roots rather than impose them from the top down.
	Islington council has recently achieved substantial results with its new acceptable behaviour contract initiative. In this programme, 10 to 18-year-olds sign contracts promising that certain standards of behaviour will be upheld. The contracts are administered by the council's housing department and the police, and a breach of the contract can jeopardise the family's tenancy if they are residents of council or housing association accommodation. So far, ABCs—as they are known—have proven very effective in reducing teenage antisocial behaviour, as linking behaviour standards to tenancy privileges has forced parents to take action to ensure that their children are better behaved. Of the original 60 contracts signed last year, only two were breached.
	The most effective way to bring about an improvement in the quality of life in local communities is to involve the people of those communities. We should let the people determine what they need and want and involve them in the management of change. This task is best suited to the lowest level of government, which is closest to the people. A blanket approach to improving the quality of life in individual communities is doomed to fail. Rather than formulate a centralised plan to address this issue, it would be much more effective to empower local government to create plans that best meet local needs.
	Often, the things that make the biggest difference to people's day-to-day quality of life are those that seem relatively insignificant. I am sure that hon. Members are aware of that from their mailbags or from the people who attend their surgeries. Discarded rubbish, cyclists riding on pavements, overgrown hedgerows, faulty street lamps and broken paving stones all come into that category. Despite the fact that local government is clearly the appropriate tier to deal with many issues affecting the quality of life in communities, it is often severely hampered by underfunding, by grant regimes that do not recognise local needs, or by spending requirements and targets handed down to them by a higher authority.
	The report "Towards an Urban Renaissance", released by the urban taskforce in 1999, stated:
	"Local authorities will lead the urban renaissance. They should be strengthened in powers, resources and democratic legitimacy to undertake this role in partnership with the citizens and communities they represent".
	To do that, they must be given the proper fiscal tools, as well as be afforded more opportunity to use those tools as they see fit. We can protect, enhance and improve the quality of life in local communities only through powers exercised in the community, by the community and for the community. It is therefore no surprise that what the Government are attempting to do, often based on that report, is happening piecemeal. We need to free up local government completely, give it the competence to meet local government need, devolve finance-raising powers to the local level, and allow communities into the town halls to affect decisions and carry forward change together. That will give communities a sense of ownership about the improvements that they want to their quality of life to ensure that those improvements are sustainable and long-term.

Lawrie Quinn: It is always a pleasure to follow a fellow seaside Member in a debate. We have unique seaside communities around the country which, as I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) will agree, reflect in microcosm the problems that we see nationally, as we find out on a weekly basis in our constituency surgeries.
	The debate is very welcome. I am honoured to represent 74 parish councils in Scarborough and Whitby, which means that there are 74 distinct communities in my constituency. Two, obviously, are particularly significant: many hon. Members will recognise the pre-eminence of Scarborough as the first ever seaside resort and recall Whitby's historical importance, particularly to the Church of England.
	The two towns have quite different and distinct communities. I want to reflect in my remarks the uniqueness of each community in my constituency, and to acknowledge the differences between Newby in Scarborough and Danby in the north York moors, and between the Eastfield housing estate and Scalby, a rich suburb of Scarborough. Each has a community forum. I look forward to the Government's policies renewing, reinvigorating and revitalising the grass roots of those communities.
	As many hon. Members will know, I am one of only seven chartered engineers who are honoured to attend this Chamber. Our training means that for us the word "quality" has a meaning quite different from the standard dictionary definition. We have to be able to measure quality and refer to it in terms of yardsticks, specifications and standards. When I was designing bridges, I had to adhere rigorously to a code of practice known as BS 5400, which enables engineers to design bridges with a lifespan of at least 120 years. I hope that the policies that we are now implementing to improve the quality of our life in our local communities will have an equally long-term effect, benefiting generations to come.
	In earlier interventions in the debate I tried to focus on the importance of young people and of the next generation. Their participation in, and contribution to, local life dictates the quality of life experienced by the rest of society. My constituency varies from typical seafront arcade areas to countryside in the national parks which is probably some of the most beautiful in England, and that variety leads to different problems in individual communities. Sometimes my constituents feel that visitors to the area are afforded a far greater welcome than people who live in the area all year round.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke of the importance of clean streets and of dealing with litter. I am proud to say that my local authority has regularly won a "Keep Britain Tidy" award because of the cleanliness of its streets. However, the inspectors for the award were probably looking at the "front of house" parts of the constituency—the areas to which tourists come, such as well laid-out parks and gardens. I commend Scarborough council's parks department for its excellent work.
	Behind the front of house, however, we have housing estates such as Eastfield, Barrowcliff and Edgehill in Scarborough and Strenshoelh in Whitby. Those are areas of long-term decline and, for the communities, failure. In the northern end of my constituency is the picturesque little seaside village of Staithes, which is a real treat. It should be regarded as a wonderful world heritage site because of its position on the beautiful North Yorkshire coast. Behind that, however, is a housing estate that has suffered from long-term unemployment, and a failure to renew housing stock and the basic infrastructure available to the people who live there year round.
	The Minister is welcome to visit any part of my constituency whenever she likes. I know that she did a great deal of work on the fishing communities regeneration initiative. Former fishing communities are starting to benefit from the Government's policies. In Staithes, £19 million is being focused on rebuilding a community of several hundred people in the terms unique to that community and linked with it.
	In an intervention, I asked the Minister what importance she attached to the contribution of local people to the design and content of the built environment. I am pleased to report that this very weekend Scarborough borough council is to engage in the sort of dialogue that I want to take place throughout the country. Scarborough's community planning weekend is being held to enable the people of Scarborough—not the visitors, but the regular residents—to say how they want their community to develop.
	I shall participate tomorrow, although the events start this afternoon. In addition to important issues of economic development and tourism, which are standard fare to anyone who represents a seaside community, the arts, entertainment and culture are to be considered, not only for visitors—for example, those who flood in from northern Europe to see Sir Alan Ayckbourn's latest play at the Stephen Joseph theatre—but for the people who live in the town and want to improve their lives and participate in local activities. A significant part of the time available to local people will be devoted to children, and to young people who are at that crucial age when they are trying to find their way in the world, take on citizenship and make a contribution to local society.
	Such initiatives sound like acts of optimism, but the ability to take them has been hard won. It is only because of Government policy that the necessary resources have become available to us. I lobbied the Minister's predecessor, who is now the Minister for Sport, hard to get objective 2 status for my area. I am pleased to say that all but one of the wards in my constituency now have that status.
	The possibility of investment and spending forces us to focus. I hope that others share my view that we should not fall into the trap of engaging the usual suspects—the highly paid consultants who trek over from Leeds or up from London and mop up vital capital investment. At the earliest opportunity we must engage in the type of work embodied in this weekend's events, which are taking place under the title, "A Vision for Scarborough". People have to be involved if they are to be able to specify the quality they want in their various and diverse communities.
	Scarborough and Whitby contain a crucial group of people who should never be overlooked. I think that we stand 26th in the league table in terms of our population of over-55s. Many seaside constituencies have similar demographics. People come to our part of the world to retire, but the facilities that older people need—especially when couples move to the seaside and one partner dies a few years later—are often under great pressure. We need to plan our health and social services provision in the light of the inevitability that that large age group will increase in number.
	The Government listened to the many older people who demanded that provision be made for concessionary bus passes to improve their mobility. Scarborough and Whitby was one of 12 communities in the country that did not recognise those needs. I am proud that I participated in the passage of what became the Transport Act 2000, which resulted in older people and disabled people having that facility nationally. Great work is done for local people in both Scarborough and Whitby by action groups for disabled people. They nag, encourage and try to ensure that the council does not forget that if we make public places and facilities in a town convenient and accessible for disabled people, we shall achieve greater access for many more people within society.
	As an engineer, I had often to design footbridges over railway lines. It was a common phenomenon that, as I designed to a standard that allowed people with wheelchairs and other disabled people to have access to a bridge, it gave young mums and people who were not so badly disabled but a bit slow in their movements that access too.
	I welcome the statement about bus stops and public transport facilities. To make them more accessible for local people improves the quality of life considerably, and the accessibility improves the environment, too. If buses and trains can be used more easily because of better design that takes into account the views of the local community, that will be good both for people and for the budgets of bus companies and train operators. In the end, it will be better for the public purse.
	Quality matters, given the perceptions and daily experiences of local people, especially those who think that the visitors who come to my constituency over a 20-week period during the summer—there are about 20 million of them—are afforded a better quality of experience than they are. Quality matters for everyone, all the time.
	We now have a global media frenzy, and the internet is accessible to anyone in the world. Local people's perceptions of quality affect the perceptions of potential visitors—potential tourist customers—who are considering whether to come to places such as Scarborough and Whitby.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the pressures on London. Let us get some of the many visitors who come to places such as London away from those pressures. Let us have infrastructure available in places such as Scarborough and Whitby that will encourage them to have a different experience. Let them experience the special quality of life that we want to encourage.
	We have touched on the importance of transport. I know that the Minister is aware of the importance of the A64 corridor because she has answered questions on the subject. Her departmental colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who has responsibilities for transport, is also aware of the importance of the corridor. It brings 20 million tourists to the Yorkshire coast every year, and it is a lifeline for the rest of the community—for the manufacturers and for the people who live and work in Scarborough all the time.
	I urge my hon. Friend's Department to give even more emphasis to the developments that I hope will flow from the recent study commissioned by the Highways Agency to improve the quality of life and experience for people travelling to Scarborough. People become frustrated, turn off the A64 and go down to Bridlington, and that is no good for my constituents. They want people to come all the way to Scarborough.
	We have a serious problem with people waiting for social housing provision. Like all seaside towns, we have a large private tenant sector, which is a consequence of changes in the tourism industry and the move away from bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As part of Lord Falconer's planning consultation, officials are considering having discrete areas for residential accommodation and hotel and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Huge tension can be created when people are moved into to private sector accommodation next door to high quality hotel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They do not live in our community or respect its values and, frankly, they cause a nuisance and make life hell for some visitors and other people in the sector. I shall stress those points to Lord Falconer in due course.
	I am pleased to have been able to participate in our debate, and I hope that the Minister will pass my messages on to her colleagues in the Department. I trust that she will reply from the Dispatch Box to some of my points, particularly those concerning younger people.

Robert Syms: As the third seaside Member in a row, I am pleased to be able to participate in our important debate. As a precaution, I should like to declare an interest; I am a director of a family business, as is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not likely to stray on to that, but because our debate is wide-ranging, I cannot be sure.
	Assessing quality of life is extremely difficult. Several organisations undertake the task, including the United Nations, which produces a periodic survey. Not surprisingly, Norway, Australia and Canada tend to dominate the top three places, with Sweden, Belgium and the United States making the top 10; we tend to be somewhere in the middle of the table. A variety of things, ranging from cleanliness and restaurants to life expectancy, are taken into account.
	Having participated in yesterday's debate on international development, I believe that we should all be aware that in many parts of the world, qualify of life is getting substantially worse; life expectancy in the African continent and the former Soviet Union, for example, is getting shorter. When quality of life in cities is assessed, Zurich tends to come top, with Vancouver close behind. Brazzaville in the Republic of the Congo comes bottom; no doubt Members will take that into account when deciding where to go on holiday.

Lawrie Quinn: They should come to Scarborough.

Robert Syms: Indeed.
	The key starting point for achieving a good quality of life in Britain is to get the economy right. Unless we generate wealth, we cannot invest in public services and our citizens will not have employment or the resources to make life choices. Generally, in the last century, we did pretty well; we account for 1 per cent. of the world's population, but account for a rather higher percentage of the world's wealth. We are a small island on the edge of Europe, yet we are a major trading nation; we are an innovative nation that, by and large, works hard. Colleagues and friends who have worked in Germany have always found that the Brits there work longer hours than the Germans, who go off skiing or whatever on Friday afternoons.
	In the past 20 to 25 years, our economy has become much more flexible, and the Government were lucky to inherit that legacy from the last Conservative Government. We must acknowledge and take satisfaction in the fact that Britain has done pretty well compared with other countries. It is important that the fourth largest economy continues to grow so that, one day, we can be the third largest economy and make our full contribution in the world.
	All our constituents, including mine in Poole, have concerns about law and order. We see people in our surgeries who are worried about crime in their area. Between January 2000 and January 2002, the number of street crime incidents in London rose from 4,000 to 6,700. We cannot be complacent about crime; much more needs to be done about it. Dorset is not a high-crime area, but there is a great fear of crime, which any politician must address. Dorset police authority, which does an excellent job, is the 29th worst funded in the country. That requires difficult juggling by the chief constable and creates difficulties in terms of the precept levied on my constituents. Our police authority has one of the highest precepts in the country, because people demand policing. They like to see police officers on the streets. That is important to their quality of life, yet we are not resourced to provide the level of policing that people demand.
	We know that it is important for quality of life that people can access health services when they want them—when they are ill. We should all reflect on the fact that waiting lists affect quality of life. Like other hon. Members, I see constituents who have been assessed as needing urgent operations, yet sometimes they are told that they must wait months. Behind the figures about which we argue in the Chamber, there are people in pain, people who cannot go to work, people whose families are concerned about them, sometimes waiting months to get treatment.
	There is a particular problem at present in Dorset: some of my constituents who go to Southampton for brain surgery find that the hospital there is taking only patients who need emergency operations, because of a shortage of staff. That creates pressure and difficulty for my constituents.
	The debates that we have had this week have been useful. We may disagree about the politics in relation to the future of health care and how we organise the NHS, but it is important that we have such debates. While accepting the principle that a free service is vital to most of our citizens, we should look creatively at ways of delivering health care to them. People will feel that their quality of life has been enhanced if they can access services quickly. Scotland spends 8.6 per cent. of available resources on health, which is about the European average, yet its health outcomes are worse. We must consider reform and different ways of delivering services.
	As a member of the all-party group on haemophiliacs, I know that there is sometimes inequity in the delivery of health services. I shall give one example, which affects the quality of life of my constituents and many others throughout the country who are haemophiliacs. Those who happen to live in Wales and Scotland receive recombinant blood from the NHS. In England, that is provided as of right up to the age of 18.
	People go to the haemophilia centre in Manchester for treatment and blood products. People from Wales get recombinant—that is, man-made—treatment; those from England do not. They get plasma-based treatment. Anyone who knows the haemophilia community well knows that its members want recombinant treatment because of the history of plasma-based products, which have caused them all sorts of difficulties, such as the infections of hepatitis C and HIV. There must be equity in the provision of health care in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if we are to engender good quality of life for our citizens.
	Educational opportunity is a further important aspect of quality of life. Poole is a beautiful place in which to work, but it is difficult to own a home there because of housing costs. We therefore have difficulty recruiting teachers. I recently went round Poole high school, which has a problem recruiting sufficient maths teachers to teach pupils at key stage 3. There are real challenges to be faced in education, which we all know is the means by which people access opportunities for the future. The Government should be aware that the problems of teacher recruitment may be impacting on the children of my constituents.
	Much of the debate has focused on the leading role that local government can play in communities. By and large, Poole borough council, which is a unitary authority, does a good job, although it labours under difficult grant settlements. We have suffered under the regime that ensures that we do not get the area cost adjustment. As those of us who live in the south-west rather than the south-east know, that system means that Poole received £17 million less than it would have received if it were situated in Hampshire. That impacts on services and the ability to deliver some of the enhancements to quality of life that we have been discussing.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned the very high council tax increases. Poole has had an 11.9 per cent. increase, set against an inflation rate of 2.2 per cent. Many people on minimal fixed incomes will find the extra amount difficult to pay. Apart from the estimated cost this year of £300,000 for storing fridges under Government regulations, the Budget changes in national insurance contributions will probably add £400,000 to local government costs. Those costs are very substantial indeed.
	Poole has much potential for development; it is a beautiful place with a lot of water. Earlier this year, we made a submission to the Government on building a second bridge over the harbour, and I am pleased to say that it was accepted. The project is an exciting prospect that will allow us to develop much of the waterside area in Lower Hamworthy and to redevelop the West Quay road. The building of the bridge, which may cost £14 million, will substantially improve the quality of life for constituents who live in central Poole. It will allow sensible development and improved traffic flow, and will enable the borough to take a strategic view so that it can plan for the future. The development will also improve local transport in general.
	I could make many more comments, but I am aware that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. In conclusion, quality of life is important for my constituents. Poole is a beautiful place, but underneath the beauty, there is concern about law and order, access to the NHS, provision of top-quality education for our children and improvements in transport. Over the coming years, I shall do all that I can to campaign for a better deal for my constituents.

Clive Betts: I could speak at considerable length about improvements in the quality of life of my constituents. Since 1997, my constituency has received substantially increased investment in schools and hospitals. Investment in housing has doubled and we have seen reductions in unemployment and crime; indeed, Sheffield is the safest city in the country. However, I shall concentrate primarily on ways in which my constituents' quality of life is not good, although I recognise that the Government have many proposals to deal with such problems, which I strongly support. I urge quick action on them.
	When I was sitting in my surgery last Saturday, as many hon. Members will have been sitting in theirs, a young couple came in, sat down and began to describe how they were regularly kept awake until 5 o'clock in the morning by their neighbours. They told me that they had been keeping a diary sheet for the past five months on the antisocial behaviour of their neighbours at the request of the local housing officer, and that environmental health officers had visited to monitor the noise levels, which were found to be unacceptable. They asked how long it would be before they could go to work the next morning without being virtually unable to keep their eyes open. The man does a very dangerous job that requires him to be alert and completely awake. Their whole quality of life has clearly been affected by what has happened.
	Unfortunately, after they had given me three or four minutes of description and I had warned them that the trouble might go on for some time before they finally got some action, I found that I could tell them what was happening to them before they told me. I could do so because I had dealt with the person who was causing the problems three or four years previously, when they had caused exactly the same trouble for their then neighbour, an elderly lady. I visited her regularly and she used to sit down and cry, virtually losing control of herself, because she simply could not stand the harassment and break-ins that were blighting her life.
	I chose to describe that case because, unfortunately, it involved regular and repeat perpetrators, but I could have chosen another three cases that arose in the surgery and which involved very similar problems.
	As I said in a debate in the House on the Housing Bill in 1996, when I first became a councillor in Sheffield in 1976, the majority of my cases were to do with housing, but mainly with repairs and improvements. Most of my cases still involve housing, but they are now mainly about neighbour nuisance, which is unfortunately a recurrent problem for many constituents.
	It sounds harsh, but local authorities and housing associations have to consider carefully whether to renew some people's tenancies. The case that I described may end with eviction, but it is no good sending people to another property where they will cause similar problems to another set of unsuspecting neighbours. Obviously, we must look after the children in those cases, but I welcome Government proposals to put registered social landlords and local authorities on a similar path. They could thus take account of each other's experiences with specific tenants, who would not simply be able to get another property with a different landlord and recreate the problems.
	On the previous Saturday, I attended a meeting on the Stradbroke estate. It is a pleasant, post-war estate with Bevan houses, decent space and tree-lined roads. It is not at all a sink estate. A year ago, I was called in by the local councillor, who was fed up with getting persistent complaints from dozens of tenants about a handful of families on the estate for more than two years.
	We got together the police, housing officers, the tenancy enforcement team, the local neighbourhood watch and the tenants and residents associations. In the past year, they have worked on evidence on cases that are about to come to court. I shall not go into detail in case I prejudice them, but we have agreed to twin-track procedures for antisocial behaviour orders and evictions, and to go for both when appropriate. The lesson is to get everyone—the police, housing officers, enforcement officers, tenants and residents—to work together as a team to save the estate from antisocial behaviour.
	Seventeen people were prepared to come forward as witnesses. That is a lot—people are often frightened. However, at the end of the process, only four were prepared to come forward. It is easy to understand the reasons. The estate had been subjected to vandalism; people had been threatened and intimidated; break-ins and damage to cars had occurred; and motoring offences, including joyriding and dangerous driving, had been committed. People were intimidated and worried. We sat them down and talked to them, and we believe that we now have more witnesses and strong cases.
	I welcome recent Home Office proposals for changes to the antisocial behaviour procedures. I especially welcome the proposal to issue interim orders so that at the first court hearing an order can be made to ban someone from an area, if appropriate, instead of waiting until the end of the process. In far too many cases, defence lawyers use deferments and delays in the court procedure while the antisocial behaviour is repeated many times.
	I also welcome proposals for not granting bail in all cases. One young person on the estate has been charged 90 times with motoring offences. He knows that it does not matter if he is charged again because he goes to court, gets out on bail and commits another string of offences. The punishment will be no greater because one cannot punish someone any more for 90 offences than for 70. That is a genuine problem, and I welcome the Government's plans to tackle it.
	I also welcome the proposal to allow county courts as well as magistrates courts to issue antisocial behaviour orders. When an eviction is sought, the same court can issue the antisocial behaviour order.
	When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was first appointed to his new job last year, I wrote to him and said that the procedures for obtaining antisocial behaviour orders still needed to be reviewed. People still claim that they are too bureaucratic and there are doubts about whether the standard of proof is too high. For example, antisocial behaviour often stops just before the case gets to court. A month or so before the hearing, a sudden lull in unacceptable activities occurs. That is not a reason for not pushing or granting the order. The fact that antisocial behaviour that has gone on for three or four months miraculously stops just before a hearing is not a reason for not pursuing or granting the order.
	I am sorry to go into detail about my surgeries, but all too often they reflect the genuine problems that my constituents experience. Most of us have heard most things at our surgeries over the years.

Sally Keeble: indicated assent

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend agrees with that. However, I sat in amazement when a constituent described what happened one evening when he was sitting watching television. He lives in a flat in a relatively small block. At the back, a verandah runs along from one flat to the next, which is probably a slight design fault. As he sat there, someone burst in through his back door, breaking the lock, and ran past him as he watched television, pursued by two or three other people. He went to the housing department and to the police, and after the police had made inquiries, they advised him not to lock his back door because they thought that it would get broken down anyway when these people came back. All that he could do was accept that. He did so, and one night afterwards, they came back on three occasions.
	The problem was that the intruder—the boyfriend of the next-door tenant—was involved in taking drugs. He owed the drug dealers money and they pursued him. I obviously complained to the housing department and the police, and wanted to know what was going on. The housing officers invited me to walk round the estate with them and have a look. Before that happened, there had been a shooting on the estate—possibly connected to the other incidents—and a rent strike had been threatened. It became clear to me that the problems there were on a much wider scale.
	I decided to go there with the housing officers and to make it a public event, so we invited the press along and took the local chief inspector and the area housing manager. We also met people from the tenants and residents associations. Fifty-odd people turned up, and many of them said to me, "We don't want to leave the estate, but we know who we want to leave. There's a handful of people causing mayhem and disruption." When we went round, we saw tenants living in properties that were boarded up—not as empty properties but to protect those living inside. That is completely unacceptable.
	We quickly set up a taskforce. The police got involved again, along with the housing officers and the local tenants and residents associations. Sheffield's long tradition of good-quality tenants and residents associations dates back to the 1970s. It was strengthened by the changes that we made in the 1980s to establish them as part of the consultation arrangements. We now have increased police presence in the area and we are starting eviction processes. A clean-up is going on, security measures have been put in place, and a general attempt is being made to improve the estate and to make the environment better for people to live in.
	When I talked to people on the estate, I was told that it was not the whole estate that was the problem—it is a 1970s estate, but it is in quite a nice environment—but pockets where certain individuals lived, and it was those individuals who were causing mayhem. An old lady said to me, "Why should I have to move, Mr. Betts? I've lived here for 20 years and I know my neighbours. By and large, we are happy, but our lives have been blighted."
	We need a better, quicker and more effective eviction process. I therefore very much welcome the consultation document that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has issued on tackling antisocial tenants. It is an excellent document, and we shall look at some of its proposals with interest and give them our support. In particular, I welcome the proposals to speed up eviction procedures by giving local authorities the power to establish inquiries and investigations—yes, there would be a right of appeal—before taking issues to court. The courts would be assured that the local authorities had pursued the right procedures, which would mean that the whole case would not have to be conducted in court.
	I do not know whether those measures would be introduced for all tenancies—I understand that they currently apply to introductory tenancies—or whether they would be used as a first stage in the process of dealing with antisocial problems, by saying to people, "We have put you on a different status of tenancy and we can now evict you without having to have the case heard in court. We can speed up the procedures and deal with them internally." That might be a way forward, but, one way or another, I and many others will welcome the introduction of a speeded-up process of eviction in cases of substantial antisocial behaviour.
	We need not only speed but certainty in the process. We need to protect witnesses who are simply too frightened to come forward. People who experience substantial harassment from their neighbours that often involves threats of violence are often the last people in the world who can face going to court and giving formal evidence. We must find ways round that, and the consultation document is excellent in that respect. We should support the proposals that it contains, and I look forward to their implementation as soon as the consultation period is complete.
	I make no apology for talking about taking action against people involved in antisocial behaviour, because I feel really strongly for those on the receiving end. Of course, people must have rights, and spurious complaints are sometimes made about people. Sometimes, a dispute between two neighbours is simply six of one and half a dozen of the other.
	I am amazed that people take so long to come to me and wonder how they have put up with things for so long. It is those people—often elderly, often vulnerable—whom we have a duty to protect. The procedures must be robust; the courts must be sure that the revised procedure has been followed properly, and there will be a right to judicial review. I believe that the process is correct and must be put in place as soon as possible.
	Of course, we must consider measures of prevention. If mediation is appropriate, let us offer it. We should look more carefully at lettings policies; we must make sure that we do not put a young person straight out of care, with relatively few social skills, who might be noisy and a bit disturbing, among a group of older people and then, a few weeks later, wonder why we have a problem. When people with a history of mental illness or drug-taking go back into the community, there must be a proper standard of care to support them. They must not simply be left on their own. Sometimes, they are put into a flat with a bed but with no other furniture or carpets, so the noise travels to the neighbouring flats. That is a cause of aggravation that happens all too often.
	I welcome the changes to the letting system, such as the choice-based experiment taking place in my constituency. We must make sure that the points system is fair and equitable, and does not discriminate against tenants who have a good record but find it impossible to move because they can never get the number of points that will allow them choice in their housing.
	Antisocial behaviour problems do not apply simply to the tenants of local authorities, registered social landlords or owner-occupiers. The private sector has its own difficulties, and I welcome the proposals to license certain private sector landlords. I wonder whether we should go further and make landlords of all kinds responsible for dealing with antisocial behaviour and giving individuals the right to sue landlords who do not fulfil that duty properly. That would be a wider power. I understand that the common law means that cases that have been taken to court have generally been lost.
	The group of tenants and residents that I met on the Westfield estate said that they strongly supported the idea of neighbourhood wardens and wanted them in the area. I was surprised because I have in the past been sceptical of neighbourhood wardens. I have my reservations; I do not want to them to take on the job of the police, pushing the police out and being used as an excuse for having fewer police officers. However, the local chief inspector said that that was not the case and that, because we are getting extra police officers in Sheffield and south Yorkshire, wardens are seen not as a replacement but as an addition—as complementary. He said that he would welcome them in the area and would like to work with them.
	We tend to expect too much of the police. When I go to public meetings with the police, constituents say to them, "Our big complaint is that you don't come quickly enough when we have an emergency. We dial the number and expect you within five or 10 minutes, but sometimes it takes half an hour or you do not come until the next day." We know that the police are under pressure. Then the next person will say, "We never see a police officer in our area; we don't see them on the beat. They're not around any more." We know that, by and large, police officers walking the beat do not catch criminals. That is not their function; they are there for reassurance, prevention and deterrence.
	With the wardens' support, the police could carry out their response activities as well as a bit of beat-walking. In that way, there would be more people in the area wearing uniforms. They would be there for deterrent and preventive purposes, for reassurance and to give people a feeling of safety. I would welcome such a measure. I hope that more money can be found in the spending review for community wardens and that the Westfield estate will benefit. I am sure that such a measure would stop many problems in their infancy, rather than allowing them to get out of control.
	I welcome the increased investment in housing, which is badly needed. There is, by and large, very good council housing in my constituency, but some houses still have no proper heating systems, with the same sink units that they had 30 years ago and the same windows that they had 50 years ago. For a bit of extra money—that money is starting to come in, with the doubling of investment that the local authority has seen since 1997—they could be even better places to live.
	I want the Government to reassure me that, if the tenants in my constituency and in Sheffield generally vote against the stock transfer, for which the Liberal Democrat-controlled council is pressing although there is substantial resistance, it will not prejudice future investment in my constituents' houses. I welcome the Government's commitment to bring all public sector rented housing up to a decent standard by 2010, but it should be honoured for all tenants irrespective of whether they vote for a stock transfer.
	People come back to that issue time and again because Liberal Democrat councillors are telling people that their houses will not be repaired or improved if they do not vote for a stock transfer. Those threats are wrong, and I hope that Ministers will clearly resist them and say that it is wrong to make such threats to try to force the vote in a certain direction. The vote should be fair and people should be able to make their choice without intimidation.
	I agree with what the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said about the importance of local councils having the freedom to act in raising the quality of life of the inhabitants of their areas, but the Liberal Democrat party, which he represents, happens to be in power in Sheffield and is using those freedoms to bad effect in my constituency.
	I have already referred to the cuts in the youth budget. We should be worried about such cuts. Not having enough to do is not a reason for young people to engage in antisocial behaviour, but it certainly does not help if they have no alternative to standing around on street corners. Those cuts represent a serious attack on my constituents' quality of life.
	There have been substantial disturbances in another poor part of my constituency—Tinsley—but the police and the community have worked effectively to sort them out during the past six months. A facility for local people—the local recreation ground—has remained derelict for the past two or three years. We were promised that the Tinsley recreation pavilion would be restored last summer, but it remains unusable and unoccupied, as the council still has not got around to carrying out its promise.
	The local advice centre that works on behalf of many poor families in the area was shut two months ago. The council took away its £32,000 grant, closed it and told people to travel two miles across an industrial valley to the nearest advice centre, despite the fact that there is no direct bus service.
	The Darnall community nursery makes a valuable contribution to my constituents' quality of life, but its budget has been cut this year. The Handsworth community nursery's budget has also been cut. However, the chief council officers have received a £30,000 pay increase and the publicity budget has been boosted to £1 million to publicise the work of the ruling group. Those are ways in which the freedom for local authorities to act has been used to the detriment of my constituents.
	I support the principle of freedom, but not what the Liberal Democrat council in Sheffield is doing with that freedom. It is destroying the quality of life of my constituents in many ways, despite the fact that it has received grant increases this year at twice the rate of inflation and a council tax increase of two and a half times the rate of inflation. The council simply has its priorities absolutely wrong.
	As I said at the beginning, there are many respects in which my constituents' general quality of life has improved during the past five or six years, but there are still real problems. A handful of people cause mayhem and disruption for whole communities. I welcome the Government's proposals to deal with those matters through changes to the antisocial behaviour order arrangements and eviction procedures for tenants who behave badly.
	I would tell my hon. Friend the Minister that we need speedier and more effective procedures, but the changes to those procedures need to be introduced speedily as well. We must remember that every day of delay in Parliament is a further day of misery for thousands of people not just in my constituency, but throughout the country. We must act urgently on those issues.

Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). I agree with what he has said and want to deal with one or two of those issues myself.
	This is an important debate because, of course, communities collectively make up the nation. I want to refer to the fact that a community is more of a spirit; of course communities are created in many ways and pubs, churches, village shops and post offices make them up, but the social interaction that takes place is also important.
	I fully accept that the Government and local government have roles to play in engendering that spirit and in improving the lives of people in their local communities. However, we should remember that the social interaction that I mentioned springs from self-responsibility and from people doing things for each other, not just leaving it to the Government or local government. Too much influence from central and local government can break down communities; that is evident in many areas.
	People should feel that they have stake in the community. That is a matter not only of owning their own houses, although that is important, but of taking pride in existing institutions—in the churches, pubs and shops—and in each other and in their neighbourly behaviour. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe gave many examples of how antisocial behaviour can break down communities. Ownership of communities and of the institutions and spirit within them is extremely important.
	In a constitutional context, too much government can break down community spirit. Where possible, local councils should be made smaller to make them responsible and responsive. Many parts of the country have parish councils and town councils, which are more local and more responsive. Local people who sit on them often feel a sense of ownership and responsibility in doing so. Parliament should consider the role of town and parish councils. District councils, although smaller than county councils, can be remote from many of the people whom they represent—especially in areas that are larger in terms of size or population. Certainly, county councils can be remote.
	I urge the Government not to go down the road of regional government. In the south-west, it matters little to people in Tewkesbury whether decisions are made in Exeter or Bristol or in London. If possible, decisions relating to Tewkesbury should be made in Tewkesbury; if not, it makes no difference whether they are made in London or in Exeter, as neither would bring local benefit to the community.
	On development—house building, in other words—it is important when providing housing not just to build houses. Several places in my constituency started off as pretty villages where there was a community spirit. More houses were built, but not a balanced community, because there were no amenities to go with them. People who live in them have to go elsewhere to shop or to use leisure facilities. That does not build up community spirit: it breaks it down. Any development that has to take place—although we should question whether certain areas should be developed—should be sustainable. We hear a great deal about sustainability, but what does it mean? It means building a balanced community and having respect for it, so that people can both live and function in it. They should not just go home to sleep, and have to go elsewhere to do other things—those amenities should exist within the community.
	Decisions on where to build houses should take account of towns and cities, which require regeneration. That can by done by building on brownfield sites, or by using flats above shops—and by ensuring that shops do not close in the first place, as they often do. That has the dual effect of not destroying green belt sites or greenfield sites, which are quickly being swallowed up.
	We could also regenerate towns and cities by not taking so much money out of them. We should be imaginative about what used to be called enterprise zones. If there are serious problems in an area, perhaps instead of taxing people who live there and then feeding them the money back under a scheme that was designed in London the Government should take less money out of that area in the first place. It might be a revolutionary idea. Perhaps we should have tax-free zones in those areas for two or three years, to encourage enterprising people to move there to live, to set up businesses and to employ local people. On second thoughts, I do not think that it is a particularly revolutionary idea, but it is an imaginative idea, which I have had for a long time. I would like the Government to engage in that type of thinking.
	Many hon. Members have spoken about the destructive effect of crime and the fear of crime on local communities. It eats away at the spirit and the performance of a community. Tolerance of crime is not an option. People who have studied what has happened in New York—I have not done so in detail—have found that the successes that they have had in that city seem to have come from the opposite of a tolerance of crime: a zero tolerance of crime.
	I understand that, in that city, people can be arrested for very minor offences, but it may then be discovered that those people have committed many other offences, and if they are charged for them they can be taken off the streets. It has long been true that, as has been said, a very high percentage of crimes in a given area are committed by a very few people, and we really cannot let those people keep disrupting communities. In my opinion, zero tolerance is the way forward, not the tolerance of crime that we seem to be accepting these days.
	That brings me to the subject of drugs, because we hear reports—I do not know how accurate—that in certain areas tolerance is shown to the possession of cannabis. I declare straight away that I oppose the legalisation of cannabis, on practical as well as moral grounds, because when I speak to the police in my area, they tell me that a very high percentage of heroin addicts started off on cannabis. It is no use going down the politically correct route of saying that cannabis is okay and is the same as drink or cigarettes; it is not. It is very different, and if we are going to start tolerating crime in that way, it will be the thin end of the wedge. It is no use having antisocial behaviour orders if we are to tolerate illegal acts. That cannot be the way forward.
	We all know how much crime is committed in the pursuit of money to buy drugs. We should move in the other direction; we should stamp out drug use and the drug trade because it is destroying the lives of very many people—not just those who take the drugs but those who are affected by the crimes committed by people who want to purchase them.
	A great deal of crime is committed by people with little or no education. I cannot quote the statistic exactly, but between 50 and 60 per cent. of people in prison are illiterate or have very low literacy. That is not an excuse for crime, however, and we cannot say that because someone is illiterate they should not go to prison. I am not making that case; I have said that I believe in the tougher control of crime. I believe in tougher sentencing for many crimes. However, we should recognise why crime is committed—not tolerate it, but try to understand why it is committed by some people in the first place, with a view to stamping it out. If we can, we should not only provide better education for those who go to university but turn our attention to those who have an alleged education for 11 years and yet leave school without any literacy or numeracy skills. That cannot be right, and we should try to find out why it is happening.

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about 70 per cent. of people now in prison had been permanently excluded from school? When such youngsters, who are already disruptive, are excluded from school they get about five hours' tuition a week and then roam around, stealing mobile phones and the like. They end up in prison, and within two years of being released they are back inside again. It costs £34,000 a year to keep them in prison. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extension in September of pupil referral units, which will provide such youngsters with at least some level of concentrated education, should help the drive against criminality?

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Like other hon. Members, I have discussed such issues with teachers and head teachers. However, they do point out that the inability to exclude such pupils easily enough causes great disruption to schools. That problem must be dealt with, but I recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is all right expelling pupils, but where should they then go? Should they go to another school, which they then disrupt, or should they simply hang around on the streets, where they are a nuisance to society?
	Should they end up in prison? When someone ends up in prison, it is a tragedy for them, for their family, for the taxpayer, and even for the victim of the crime. We should do our utmost to prevent people from getting into the situations that lead to their committing the crimes that result in going to prison. One method is to improve education at school age. As I said, I am delighted that many people go to university and get a good education, but we also need to consider those who are slipping through the net and not getting any education at all.
	A great many people are in employment these days—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, we handed the Labour Government a very sound economy, which they have not quite managed to destroy just yet—so to some extent there is a skills shortage. However, I speak with some experience when I say that the collapse of certain industries has destroyed many communities. The mining and steel industries are the obvious examples, but we should remember the textile industry, in which I worked for many years. Many people in that industry, who were low paid to start with, lost their jobs. It is very difficult for such communities to share in the general wealth of the nation, given that they started from such a low base, only for their industries to be destroyed. That has proved a terrible problem, particularly in the farming industry.
	We have concentrated—probably rightly—on many of the problems in towns and inner cities, but I want to touch on those affecting rural areas. I represent a constituency that is, by and large, rural, and its communities have experienced many difficulties. They suffer because of their rurality, which is not adequately compensated for because of the way that local government grants are assessed. However, there are also problems with transport. Rural areas suffer from very poor transport links, and there is also much poverty and crime.
	More and more people from rural communities are complaining to me—in person and in writing—about crime in their areas. We should not ignore that issue. Although my constituency is not considered an area of deprivation, pockets of deprivation exist. We have awful problems with drug dealers and with theft in certain parts of the constituency, and I am rather peeved that the national lottery grants do not adequately reflect that fact. Areas are assessed in terms of overall deprivation, but it is not recognised that certain pockets of deprivation—perhaps such as those in my constituency—do not have the full amenities and levels of wealth that other parts of the country enjoy.
	To some extent, the Government have recognised the problem. They intend to concentrate on improving national lottery grants for 51 areas that they have identified throughout the country, but I should point out that 50 of those areas already receive more money than Tewkesbury does. As the Member of Parliament for Tewkesbury, I find that a little difficult to understand and hard to take. I have initiated one Adjournment debate on that issue already, and I am applying for another. Although Tewkesbury has applied for about a sixth of the money that has been applied for in Gloucestershire—there are six constituencies in the county, so that is about right—it has received only 3 per cent. of the amount available to the county. That is not acceptable to my constituents who play the lottery as keenly as anyone else. They do not think that they are getting an adequate reward for that.
	On the theme of rural communities, farms are not only family businesses that generate sources of income on which people rely for their living, but a crucial part of the countryside. Farmers are the custodians of the countryside and have suffered terribly not only from the BSE crisis, but from the foot and mouth crisis as well, which hit my constituency hard. In addition, although I do not want to make a party political point, the Government are ignoring some of the bigger problems in the country and are determined to ban hunting.
	I do not hunt and never have. Indeed, I have not always lived in a rural area. I lived in Bolton in Lancashire for 33 years and did not have a view on hunting because I knew nothing about it. I remind the Government that the Burns report, which they commissioned, identified that events and organisations like gymkhanas and pony clubs are dependent on people who participate in hunting. Hunting is important to some parts of our communities, such as my constituency, and in a few areas, it is crucial. It will be a further blow to those rural areas if it is banned.
	A community is not just about a physical area; it is also about a community spirit. Many communities, each with their own spirit, are what make up a country. I am delighted to have been present for this important debate. I am glad that the Government introduced it and that I have been able to participate.

Dennis Skinner: When the Minister opened the debate, she talked in measured terms about the Government's proposals to improve the quality of life. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) accused her of issuing a distorted press release before going on to give us the Tory press release for the day.
	When the Tories and others denigrate the national health service as part of the quality of life argument, they should be careful. It is true that the Daily Mail can find a casualty here, there and everywhere every day, but those of us who go to hospital on a regular basis have seen for ourselves the smiling faces of the winners who come out after seeing the doctor for a check-up or whatever. When I discuss things with those people, almost every one of them praises the NHS to the skies. That was true of my brother as well, who recently died of cancer. Before he passed away, he had nothing but praise for the treatment that he received from nurses and everyone else who cared for him during his four to five-year struggle.
	When politicians—the Tories and Liberals in particular—slag off the NHS, they do not fully realise just how many people have to use it. As we live longer, more and more of us will rely on it. Those of us who have had a second mortgage on life will defend the NHS. I am pleased that, in order to improve the quality of life, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come up with an idea that some people might regard as old Labour. For me, however, it is sensible and necessary. It means that those pensioners who are going to benefit from the NHS like never before are not going to have to contribute to the national insurance levy.
	I therefore think that it was a good proposal. It will mean that the quality of life in all our constituencies will be vastly improved over the course of the next 10 or 15 years. It may not be perfect—I am not one of those politicians who believes that we can discover or produce nirvana in the morning—but it will make one hell of a difference to those people who use it.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also referred to crime. The Tories ought to keep their trap shut about crime. It is not just a problem on the Sheffield estates, although my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) spoke eloquently about his meetings. If we think about Archer and Aitken and about Lady Porter—and where she ought to be, as she owes £27 million but they cannot get hold of her—the truth is that crime cuts across all swathes of society.
	The same thing applies to the argument that we have heard about drugs. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)—I say this advisedly—was talking about the drugs issue as if it related to working-class people alone. However, the truth is that it cuts across large sections of society. I have had people in my surgery such as 27-year-old heroin users who are in a job; they have not been dragged in and they did not work in the pit. This issue has accelerated and has been accentuated in the last 20 or 30 years. It was not around when I was a kid. We used to smoke fags as we were going over the hills to school, and we thought we were involved in a great escape. Today, however, it is totally different.
	I have not yet got caught up with those who believe that we ought to legalise this, that and the other. I shall certainly not advance the idea that was put forward by a leading Liberal Democrat the other day to improve the quality of life. She said that we ought to be handing out free cocaine. If I voted for that, people in my ex-pit villages would be saying, "What about free fags and free ale and all the rest?" Liberal Democrats say some barmy things. We can all dream up a fantasy solution, but we must find the money; it must be sensible, and it must make a difference.
	I entered this debate principally because I was born and bred in a pit village and I represent a constituency that used to have about 25 pits. I watched the quality of life deteriorate in the period when pits were being shut left, right and centre in my constituency. By the time the Tories had gone, the net result was that every single pit in north Derbyshire had gone. As a result, thousands of people were without work. One of the things that I have been trying to do to improve the quality of life in each of the pit villages is to try to restore the social fabric that was decimated by those Tory Governments who decided to get rid of all the pits.
	At the end, there was a qualitative change—in 1962, when I was a miner, I was transferred from one pit to another one, but there were no transfer pits for those that were closed in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. That is why, in the past four or five years, we have had limited success in trying to rebuild those communities. I would be foolish and naive, however, if I did not give the impression that once the social fabric and the tightly knit community of a pit village has been destroyed, it is a big job to try to get it back on its feet. That is why I have always concentrated on the issue of jobs and the need to get more jobs into those areas that have suffered even more.
	I am pleased that in the past five years we have had an economy that is getting more and more people back into work. I was here between 1974 and 1979 and I saw the opposite. One of this Government's redeeming features is that, whereas in 1976 we were having to tear up the Labour manifesto and shoot off to borrow from the International Monetary Fund, we now have a bob or two to give the IMF to bail out the 22 under-developed countries and improve their quality of life as well. I know that the quality of life in Bolsover will not continue to improve unless we manage to get our macro-economic policies right. That means concentrating on reducing unemployment. There is no doubt that it has gone down even in my area, principally because of the general state of the economy.
	My hon. Friend the Minister visited my area to look at Shirebrook and one or two other pit villages. Together, we are trying to rebuild those areas. I have to tell the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that we got a sum from the lottery to refurbish Shirebrook miners' welfare, and I have been as good as the next Member at getting money for this, that and the other. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and her predecessor both declared that the pit areas that were hammered mercilessly will get favourable treatment, so Shirebrook miners' welfare, a necessary part of the village, has been improved.
	I have to be careful about what I say about all these figures, but I got £24 million for the Shirebrook pit site, not from the lottery but from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had to sign for that personally because the amount was more than the original £20 million, but I managed to force him into it. There will now be an industrial site on the old pit tip. My hon. Friend the Minister went there and knows that the heat was tremendous because of the spontaneous combustion underneath.
	We are going to develop the housing, much of which is derelict as a result of pirate landlords moving into the Coal Board housing estates and taking over. They take the rent for a short period but do nothing with the houses, which fall into rack and ruin. Now we have to pick up the pieces and try to ensure that the whole village can last the next 40 or 50 years. So there is the miners' welfare, housing and jobs where the pit used to be. I have been taking action in many of my villages. We have to get a bit more money, so I hope that my hon. Friend is listening carefully. We want some more money for Creswell model village. We have made a start and got rid of 80 old houses, and I think there are another 160 to go, so my hon. Friend will be hearing about that.
	Another proposal is to do something with the old Markham area, where there were several pits. An announcement has been made by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. That is the Department that took back Railtrack. Our shiny new Labour Secretary of State upset the Tories because it looked as if he was acting out of character when he took Railtrack back into the public sector. Frankly, I think he did a great job on that score. On top of that, he agrees with me that the M1 will have a new junction, 29A, leading to an industrial site at Markham that will produce between 8,000 and 9,000 jobs. It will be bigger than Meadowhall, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe knows all about. These jobs will not be in shops; they will be in factories and so on. It will be the biggest industrial development since they sunk the pits.
	Hon. Members can see that I have been pretty active behind the scenes, trying to restore the social fabric and improve the quality of life in our area. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister knows this, but we have got £7 million for the King's Mill hospital. That is not in my constituency, but right on the border, so I cannot take the credit for that. However, there is £7 million to improve the Frederick Gent school at South Normanton, and there is another matter that I hope to sort out eventually.
	What I am trying to say is that we cannot do any of that unless the economy is doing well. We cannot do anything, in socialist terms, if we are skint and if we are having to beg and borrow. That is why it is very important that the national economy is kept on an even keel, with more people in work and more people paying tax and national insurance. We can then have a regional policy whereby we can provide more money where it is absolutely necessary. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) is here. People in Wales and other parts of Britain understand that we have to restore opportunities in the areas that got hammered.
	The quality of life in mining areas was never superb. I am not one of those ex-miners who has a romantic view of the wonderful past working down a pit. The camaraderie was wonderful, but it was a lousy job. We are trying to recreate jobs and improve the quality of life in those areas, and we have made a bit of a start. If we continue along that path, in 10 or 20 years' time, we will have made some of the pit villages that were almost destroyed, with their boarded-up houses all over the place, look a bit better; and if we can get jobs in those areas, I have no doubt that the quality of life will have improved in ways we can be proud of.
	Quality of life means that people have to have the right to roam, whether or not they have a job. I am pleased that we passed the legislation securing that right. We shall be able to see the little foxes roaming all over the place, because we will ban hunting—there will be no third way, will there? No. We shall be able to see all the little foxes in Chatsworth park—we shall be able to trample all over the Duke of Devonshire's land.

Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dennis Skinner: I think the hon. Gentleman wants to go there as well.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is my parents' MP and that my father was a miner. Will he not respect the right of rural communities to live the life they have lived for many years, just as he wanted mining communities to be able to do?

Dennis Skinner: It is a false distinction to separate mining communities from rural communities. Most mining communities are rural communities, with each pit separated from the next by 20 or so fields. I was born in a rural community, and I know that we should not get the impression that the drive to ban foxhunting emanates from city dwellers. The ban is supported by a majority of people in my constituency and all the rural areas as well.
	We will have the right to roam. Tomorrow marks the 70th anniversary of the mass trespass at Kinder Scout. We shall celebrate the fact that, after all those years, all the Labour party resolutions and all the previous Labour Governments, the current Labour Government have passed the legislation giving people the right to roam. I think that that, together with jobs, the health service, other public services, housing and all the rest, will improve the quality of life of all our people. Those are the things that improve the quality of life.
	Improving the quality of life is not an abstract concept. It is about doing things and having the brass to do them with, and in the past five years we have had a bob or two to spend. I want us to spend the next five or 10 years doing the exact same things.

Stephen McCabe: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although he is a hard act to follow—

Laurence Robertson: Impossible.

Stephen McCabe: I quite agree.
	Like my hon. Friend, I was bemused by the synthetic anger displayed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). Only after reading the press release and hearing the rest of his speech did I realise what he was doing. There were two elements, the first of which was an innocuous but fairly good press release that pointed out that certain Government activities were addressing some of the problems that people consistently bring to the attention of Members of Parliament from all parties. There was a little good news about some progress being made after a bit of work, but the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to acknowledge that. Instead, he used it as a hook for a party political broadcast. Quite a broadcast it was too. He told us that rail privatisation was a good thing. Anyone would have thought that Mrs. Thatcher had been a friend of the railways. He relied on quotes from 1995 to tell us how well Conservative councils are doing now.
	That was a shabby attack. The second element is that a pattern of opposition on the part of Conservative Members is emerging. It is not only that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any good news, or that they constantly want to denigrate what is happening, just for the sake of it. We know now that it is a strategy. The person who let the cat out of the bag was the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). He did not intend to do that. Instead, he intended to tell members of the Conservative party in secret what the strategy was. Unfortunately, he was taped and the Daily Mirror blew the gaff.
	We know that the hon. Gentleman's strategy is to persuade the public that the health service will not work. That is phase 1 of a four-phase strategy. The idea is to denigrate the health service and demoralise people generally, including those who work in the service, so as to be in a position to do away with it.
	I wonder whether the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is widening that approach. Is the Conservative strategy on every other subject the same? If so, they will tell people who are worried about crime that we cannot solve the policing problem, and people who are worried about housing that we cannot do anything about that either.
	I suspect that that pattern is emerging from a party that does not have any real engagement with the issues that concern people, but does have a clear desire to denigrate and smash public services. That is supposed to provide the platform for the Conservatives to remove the investment that the Labour Government have been putting in. I suspect that that is what we saw demonstrated by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
	I had intended to talk about what is happening in some of our communities, including the progress that we have seen through the strengthening of the economy, the jobs that are coming back and the money that has been put in, as well as some of the difficulties that we are still trying to confront.
	As I was travelling to the House on the bus this morning, I read the report of an interview with a 13-year-old girl in the estate in which Damilola Taylor died. As I read it, I realised that the truth is that however much progress we are making and however many things we are doing that are making a difference, we must accept that for many people there is still a long way to go. We read about youngsters growing up in estates who at the age of 13 can say, "I've handled a gun. I know a 13-year-old boy who regularly walks round with one stuffed into the waistband of his pants." That should cause us all concern.
	The problem is not confined to estates in south London. Only the other week there was a drive-by shooting in Birmingham. I know that the number of offences involving guns is creeping up all the time. They are becoming a regular occurrence. I know also that it is far too easy for people to gain access to guns.
	I feel that the time has come to review gun laws. We should seek to stop guns coming in from external sources, and we should investigate the mail order business, the internet business and those who sell apparently "safe" guns—air pistols or replica guns, for example—that are re-engineered in back-street workshops and used in crimes.
	If we want to show concern for the quality of life in our communities, we must tackle the big things that are destroying our communities. We must say that the gun lobby has had its day. It is time we tightened up and did everything in our power to take guns out of our communities.
	It seems that we have guns in our communities because of the scourge of drugs. I am astonished that we should find ourselves in a position where debate is reduced to narrow arguments about which policing tactic is effective. People who are using guns and killing other members of the community, often in drive-by shootings, are locked into the heroin and crack cocaine trade, and they are ravaging communities across the country. We should go after those people with a vengeance and root them out.
	We should use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to strip those people of every asset that they acquire from that illegal trade. I served for months on the Committee that deliberated on the Bill, and I was astonished how often Opposition Members sought to weaken the powers in it so as to preserve the interests of the folk who are wrecking our communities. I am not trying to make a desperate party political point; I am warning Opposition Members that if they are serious about dealing with the problems that ravage our communities, they should support us when we give the police and other agencies the power to make a difference. They are out of order when they try to whittle away those powers.
	Finally, there is a debate to be had about the nature of policing in this country. It would be a terrible mistake if that debate were reduced to the details of police numbers, or how police co-operate with other agencies that may engage in support activity. In my community, the crime fighting fund has been beneficial in establishing small squads in particular areas to tackle the antisocial criminal behaviour with which we are all familiar. A substantial reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour on the Pitmaston Estate in Hall Green is the result of work by a dedicated squad funded by the crime fighting fund. We should encourage and welcome that kind of activity.
	If we are serious about trying to tackle ongoing crime, we must recognise that the police themselves want intelligence-led policing. Neighbourhood wardens and community support officers, for example, can provide them with assistance. When a house is burgled it is probably a waste of time sending a police officer, but it is a good idea to send a forensics team, which is much more likely to be of assistance in catching the people involved. I am sure that most Members know that 90 per cent. or more of forensic teams are civilians, not police officers, but work hand in hand with the police to boost the detection rate.
	That is the kind of mature debate that I want on policing; it is the kind of debate that my constituents understand and are happy to engage in. They do not want slogans, they do not want our public services denigrated, and they do not want people to talk tough and then, in the privacy of Committees, water down Bills that would make a difference. They want real action on the things that concern them, and I hope that our activities in the months and years ahead will focus on that.

Geraint Davies: The contributions to our debate have been wide ranging—not least that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who rightly made the point that unless the economy is in shape and we are delivering an extra 1.5 million jobs instead of spending money on debt and the dole, we cannot deliver the services in health and education that people want for a basic quality of life.
	I shall not focus on those important wider issues, but on the quality of life on the street and in our communities. We have made enormous progress in providing better education, more jobs and a better health service, but in many of our areas people still have a fear of crime as they walk down their street.
	Particularly in my area, one of the reasons why some people might experience such fear is the presence of graffiti, abandoned cars, and other signs and symbols of neglect and vandalism, which make people scared to walk their own streets. Much has been done by councils and by the Government to tackle the problem through lighting, CCTV, more police, street wardens, efforts to design out crime, and investment in youth provision.
	In the brief time available, I shall focus on some of the pioneering work that is being done in Croydon and suggest what more might be done. In my home patch, there is enormous co-operation between the council, the police and the community to clean up the area and make it a safer place to be. We have six teams of two who go out and scrub off graffiti. We have action against young offenders, which does not necessarily mean a hard-line approach that pushes them through the courts and puts them in prison. The aim is to find out who is responsible for the graffiti and go to their homes, tell their fathers and get the culprits to clean off the graffiti. That is working, in co-operation with the youth service, and it is more effective than pushing people through the prison system.
	Earlier, I mentioned the problem of the 70,000 people in British prisons. Many of those people had in the past been permanently excluded from school. I am glad, as I said, that the Government have decided to provide excluded children with permanent education. I believe that they deserve more and better education than the average, to ensure that they do not end up in our jails and become repeat offenders, causing mayhem on our streets. It is not value for money to spend £34,000 a year to keep someone in jail.
	Other preventive measures implemented locally include the introduction of climbing plants and pre-grown ivy on flank walls that tend to be attacked regularly. That has eliminated the problem of graffiti and improved the local environment. There has been heavy investment in CCTV and we have asked local retailers to lock away aerosol cans. We found that as most of the paint that is used to spray graffiti is stolen, that has reduced the amount of graffiti locally but has not affected trade or the viability of local shops.
	By the very nature of the crime, the offender leaves his signature on walls to show how clever he is. That allows us to create a database of tags and eventually identify the offenders. I believe that there is much mileage in advertising hefty rewards to discover whose the tags are. In the world of competing graffiti vandals, it is known whose the tags are—that is the whole point. If a reward of £1,000 leads to the identification of an offender through his tag, and Scotland Yard gets a warrant, enters his flat and finds the evidence—aerosols and so on—he should be charged with everything it is possible to charge him with.
	What sort of people are committing those offences? Historically, graffiti vandals tended to be hard-core criminals. Increasingly, however, we now find that they are first-time offenders who think that they are participating in some sort of popular culture largely imported from the United States. We need to confront that at the core and demonstrate to people that they are destroying their own environment.
	Speaking to primary school children in an area that I represent, I found that many young children said that they were scared by the emergence of more graffiti and abandoned cars. It is not true that the vast majority of young people tolerate vandalism. They want to stamp it out as much as we do. That is why Croydon is spending £250,000 a year on anti-graffiti measures. Across London the figure is more than £10 million. The Government have made some headway on the problem in terms of antisocial behaviour measures, and the Greater London Authority is asking, in clause 18 of the London Local Authorities Bill, that under-18s should be prevented from buying aerosols or marker pens.
	In Germany a new anti-graffiti law was brought forward in January to extend the powers against graffiti vandals and ensure that less evidence was needed to exercise them. In the United States it is already obligatory to lock up spray paint in shops and restrict its sale to adults. In Chicago, there is a complete ban on the sale of spray paints. I have written to the Home Secretary suggesting that we simply ban the production, sale and import of aerosol cans of paint.
	Some people may lift their eyebrows at that proposal, but we are dealing with a balance of costs and benefits, and we must consider the reasons why people use the sprays. People who legitimately want to spray over a scratch on their car can use other means of applying the paint. Professional painters of cars have mechanisms other than cans at their disposal, which leaves only artists. Restrictions apply to guns and restrict their use to clubs. Perhaps artists should join clubs so that the items in question, which are used to destroy our environment, are kept under close guard. In my area a gentleman called Philip Ditton is running around the residents' associations trying to gain support for that idea, and I certainly think that it is worth while.
	The least that we should do is impose very tight controls on the retail and manufacture of these devices, which are largely used by young people and are sold on the internet explicitly for the creation of mayhem and damage. The paints are also dangerous; many of them contain especially dangerous solvents, gas and resins. Some contain nitrocellulose and acrylic elements that bite into the painted surface to which they are applied.
	Aerosol cans should be locked up in shops and kept away from children, and there should be local laws against their possession by children. The police should have greater powers to stop and search, so that they can deal with somebody who is walking along the road with aerosol cans clearly sticking out of his trouser pockets, while fresh graffiti has just appeared around the corner. When the police see such people, they should be able to demand that they turn out their pockets.
	We could also introduce dry mineral cleaning equipment of the sort currently used in France, and there are some possibilities with anti-graffiti coatings—chemicals that are applied to signs and the like, and stop graffiti staying there and allow it to be wiped off. Also, as I said, there should be a more comprehensive tag database that the police can use to hunt down the perpetrators using the incentive of rewards.
	Warrants for entry into property should also be available, and we should consider banning the advertisement of imported products, especially those coming from Spain and Germany, that are designed to be sprayed on walls and public spaces. They are mainly advertised on the internet. I wonder whether, if a ban were agreed to, some of the stuff coming through the post could be detected by X-rays and the like.
	The private sector, too, has a duty to clean up its space. It is disgraceful that when people travel to London on the train, they pass massive areas of derelict railway land that has been completely vandalised and is covered in graffiti. It would be better if such places were covered in advertising, which would pay for itself, cover the areas and pay for some sort of clean-up. In general, there is an argument for the principle that the polluter pays. The manufacturers of aerosol paints should pay to repair the damage that misuse leads to.
	There is a lot to think about in all those proposals. Members of my local community are sick and tired of having to see signs of graffiti when they walk down the road. They are also aware that council tax is being used to eliminate some of the problems. Croydon council is doing a marvellous job in fighting back to clean up the streets, but more measures need to be taken.
	We also have a problem with abandoned cars. It is largely created by second-hand cars that have a negative value, partly because the scrap steel is no longer worth anything. The Government gave local authorities greater powers to clear up abandoned cars after the Prime Minister made a speech in Croydon. We are now clearing up approximately 5,000 abandoned cars every year. Last month the figure was 450.
	There is a peculiar mystery involving the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who recently visited Croydon—without notifying me, of course. They appeared in the news beside a burnt-out abandoned car that had not been reported to the council. However, when the council went to remove it, it had already gone. There was some suspicion that the visiting Conservative dignitaries put it there. We are still looking into that rather strange matter.
	Contrary to the impression that those Conservative Members gave in the local newspaper, Croydon is second to none in clearing up abandoned vehicles. As I said, last month we cleared up 450, compared with 350 in Tory Bromley and 160 in Liberal Democrat Sutton. We take the problem seriously, as does the local community. We are grateful for the Government's support and wish them well in giving us more powers to tackle that difficult problem.

Sally Keeble: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate, which has been wide ranging and has shown the importance of environmental issues to people throughout the country. Hon. Members from all parties understand that pavement politics issues are important to the well-being not only of individuals and local communities, but to local economies.
	The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) struck a jarring note by focusing on the press release. It and the method that produced it will withstand any scrutiny. In drawing attention to it, he has created a story when none existed. I welcome the fact that more people will read it, but his actions fail to do justice to a serious, well-informed debate on an important subject.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister confirm that, in her opinion, the press release did not break the civil service code?

Sally Keeble: I am absolutely clear that it did not break the civil service code.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned destruction of greenfield sites. He was wrong about that. The Government's approach is to monitor and manage, whereas that of the Conservative Government was to predict and provide. In many cases, our figures for housing need in different areas are lower than the current rate of building. When figures for town centre development are compared with those for out-of-town development, they show that our policies to support town centres and protect greenfield areas from urban sprawl, especially out-of-town retail centre development, are working well.
	The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government on transport. Our approach to London Underground was determined by a legacy of underinvestment and the well-perceived need to improve its quality as a key part of improving the capital city's infrastructure.
	The hon. Gentleman also criticised our record on social services, but that of the Conservative Government was bad. Those who remember care in the community know that what should have been a good policy was fatally flawed because of the Conservative Government's failure to fund it properly. Many old people are now paying the price of that underinvestment. We have learnt from that, and in introducing our supporting people programme, we shall ensure the provision of good-quality, supported accommodation across the board for the people who need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) will be interested in that.
	We recognise that not only elderly people, but people who have come out of prison, those who have left care and psychiatric hospitals and those who are fleeing domestic violence need supported accommodation. That applies also to some very young people who, on being given the key to a council flat and being told, "There's your flat; go and get on with your life", have real difficulties because they do not yet have the necessary social skills. A number of hon. Members have spoken about that today, and about the consequences for communities of young people not getting the support that they need when they need it.
	We have provided free nursing care for people in care homes, and invested more money in the health service and in local authorities to deal with the pressing problem of ensuring that, when older people are discharged from hospital, they can go into appropriate accommodation. Having lived in their home for, perhaps, 50 years, many of them have the awful experience of seeing it for the last time out of the back of an ambulance as they are carted off to hospital. They never manage to get home to pack up their belongings because the necessary support systems are not in place. We have put the money into local government to unlock some of those acute difficulties.
	In looking at ways of providing services, I have previously mentioned Castle Vale, which has come up with some extremely good partnerships—involving the private sector, the housing authority and the health authority—to find ways of helping older people in their transition from hospital back into the community. That brings me to the most depressing aspect of the contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. His speech did not do justice to the outstanding work being done in communities throughout the country to tackle those difficult issues.
	The hon. Gentleman might say that I look at life through rose-tinted spectacles, but I think that he had the most severe bout of the blues today that I have ever come across. Many disadvantaged areas have been beset by crime, drugs, poverty, poor housing and poor local management of services. They have taken a grip on those problems through measures such as the new deal for communities and have transformed what is happening. That has taken a lot of hard work, commitment and dedication by a range of people at local level.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister point to any one of the statistics that I gave in my speech which she thinks is inaccurate, or with which she takes issue?

Sally Keeble: Yes, I will indeed be coming to one. I shall deal with it when I respond to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on crime statistics.
	The Conservatives have made much of wanting to be compassionate and to be the party of the disadvantaged. If they want even to start going down that road, they should support their communities, listen to them and look at what they are doing. They should also look at their problems. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spent most of his speech denigrating the outstanding work that many of those communities are doing. The Conservatives are turning the crime statistics round and running them down. That does no justice at all to the work being done.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting talked about the problems of older people who are out of work, which the Government are dealing with through the new deal for the over-50s and through the work being done to encourage volunteering. He also drew attention to the need to ensure that the needs of black minority ethnic communities are catered for in our towns and cities, including through the provision of facilities. Issues about the provision of facilities often relate back to planning decisions, and I draw to his attention, and pay tribute to, the work of the planning inspectorate to attract more people from the black minority ethnic communities into the planning profession, and to get them to stay and become inspectors so that they can play a part in shaping our urban communities.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the impact of property leases on people starting up in business. I draw his attention to the code that my Department recently agreed with all sectors of the commercial property industry to deal with some of the problems that he identified. I shall ensure that he gets a copy of that, and of the "Plain English" leaflet that goes with it, which is quite outstanding—it is a model of how to produce plain English leaflets.
	My hon. Friend asked about the procurement of affordable housing through the planning process. We are extremely concerned about that and see it as part of the planning process to make sure that developments include some affordable housing. It is key to tackling some of the problems in London. If he writes to me about the issues that he is concerned about, I shall certainly look at them, although he is aware of the restrictions on the Department's role in the planning process.
	The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) set out some of the serious issues raised by the urban taskforce. All of those have been taken on board by the Government and substantial progress has been made in delivering on them. He also talked about the flight to the suburbs. Some big cities are doing extremely good work in reversing that flight and increasing the residential population in city centres. I mentioned Newcastle previously, but Manchester and Nottingham are also doing good work through design and innovative housing. Nottingham works with the private sector and some housing associations, and environmental standards are being improved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) talked about including young people and children. The green spaces taskforce is looking carefully at the needs of children and young people. It recognises that young people can be a problem because they just want to hang out, like young people do. Parks and open spaces have a role in providing facilities where young people can do that without being perceived as a threat or a nuisance. Recommendations on that will, I hope, be made shortly.
	I was pleased to hear about the success of the programmes for fishing communities. The Government recognise that the need to deal with the environment is particularly serious for seaside towns and all areas trying to attract tourists. I wish my hon. Friend's council all the very best for its planning weekend and its effort to engage the public in the planning process.
	The hon. Member for Poole raised a number of issues. I agreed with many of his comments about the country's strong economic performance, but I take issue with his position on crime. Fear of crime must be tackled as well as crime itself. The Home Office statistical bulletin 18/1, which draws from information in the 2001 British crime survey, shows that crime went down by a third between 1995 and 2000 and has dropped by 21 per cent. since 1997. It also deals with fear of crime, because crime can be considered in terms of enforcement or victims, and shows that the chance of people being victims of crime is the lowest for nearly 20 years. That is important in terms of people's day-to-day experience.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) described eloquently the problems of antisocial behaviour. Most hon. Members have heard similar stories at their advice surgeries. He described many of the measures that my Department is considering, so I shall not go through them all again. We are also working closely with the Home Office. I re-emphasise the fact that we need to ensure not only that the police, local authorities and communities work together to enforce law and order, but that we prevent crime by building safety into the design of urban areas.

Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned the problem of witness intimidation. The statute book provides opportunities to protect the victims of rape as well as juvenile victims. Will my hon. Friend the Minister talk to her colleagues about the possibility of providing anonymity for those who have been subjected to violent crimes on estates and are in fear of coming forward as witnesses?

Sally Keeble: I shall certainly take up that point with my colleagues in the Home Office.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) talked about the distance between local councils and the local community. He also talked about rural problems. We recognise those issues, which is why funding has been provided for rural policing and bus services. I understand that the funding for those bus services has produced an extra 4 million passenger journeys—a remarkable increase.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly said that small pockets of disadvantage are often found in affluent areas. The aim of our proposals on the local strategic partnership and neighbourhood renewal—I agree that the jargon is often absolutely appalling—is to ensure that those involved in all local services sit down to address the problems that occur in all areas, not just those that are most disadvantaged. Problems must be properly identified and targeted, even in affluent areas—his constituency is fairly affluent—so that we can end the disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a hard act to follow—and an even harder act to comment on—but he is absolutely right to say that the No. 1 issue is the economy. The economy determines our quality of life to a very basic degree. I thought that it would probably be helpful to try to limit this debate a bit, which is why I did not talk about the NHS, schools, employment, mortgage rates and all the other issues on which the Government have an outstanding track record. Obviously, those factors and services also dictate a person's quality of life.
	My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refer to the work being done in the coalfields and to the investment in the economy, transport infrastructure, roads and motorways and in regenerating the former colliery sites. In his area, the investment has gone into an industrial park. Elsewhere, it has gone into leisure parks and nice green spaces, as well as into housing regeneration. In place of the dereliction of the Tory years, the Government have rebuilt.
	The work in the coalfields shows perhaps one of the starkest contrasts between this Government's approach and that of the Conservatives. There are 13 or 14 villages in the Eden valley, and it is extremely important that we see that project through, because it can provide us with a model of how to deal with some of the problems found elsewhere in the country.
	It is essential that we ensure that all sections of our society benefit from the strong economy. In addition to economic growth, we need to spread that development throughout our society. Again, one of the big differences between the Conservatives and Labour is the fact that we have put in place the mechanisms to ensure that, at the grassroots level, people can feel the benefit of our economic strength and progress.
	The fact that those mechanisms did not exist previously is best summed up by what happened in London during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when Canary Wharf was developed while some of the most disadvantaged communities nestled around it. We need to ensure that those disparities are ended and that all sections of society feel the benefits. That is what much of this debate has been about.

Dennis Skinner: Notwithstanding the success that I mentioned, I have about another 10 projects lined up, so I hope that they will not be disadvantaged. The job is only half done; there is a lot more to do.

Sally Keeble: "A lot done, a lot more to do" is a slogan that I have heard somewhere else, and I agree with it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) was right about the cynicism and despair engendered by Opposition Members. Telling people that they can do nothing about anything and that nothing will make a difference only days before local authority elections—

Malcolm Moss: I did not say that.

Sally Keeble: Actually, the hon. Gentleman did. It is tantamount to putting out a notice saying, "Don't bother to vote." In fact, all the evidence shows that people can make a difference. They can reduce crime and improve their estates and schools. How—and, indeed, whether—people vote does make a difference and does count.
	The biggest antidote to the cynicism and despair that the hon. Gentleman encouraged and engendered is to go to one of the new deal for communities areas, such as the one in Tottenham that I visited recently, to see the difference that people have made by taking control of their own communities and saying what they want out of local services. It is not only a question of how much money is spent; what ultimately makes the difference is the way in which it is spent and the involvement of the community.
	Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, mentioned what happened on the North Peckham estate. As a former leader of Southwark council—I see that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is now here—and a former governor of Oliver Goldsmith school, I think that we should be cautious before we leap to conclusions. I am sure that the whole House would want to extend great sympathy to the family of Damilola Taylor. His loss was a complete tragedy, and recent events must make things infinitely worse for them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) made direct links between micro-actions at community level and the big picture. If we are serious about achieving urban renaissance and regenerating our towns, cities and rural communities, and about ending the disadvantage that has been a scar on many parts of the country, we must deal with the day-to-day and street-level problems that make a substantial difference to people's experiences and chances in life. As my hon. Friend said, we should celebrate what our local communities and local councils are doing. The changes that they can deliver will improve people's quality of life in their local communities and help to transform our society very much for the better.

Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DIRECT TELEPHONE MARKETING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Kevin Brennan: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the regulation of telephone marketing. I am also delighted that it will be an all-Celtic exchange with my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness. Many of our Anglo-Saxon colleagues will be engaged elsewhere, probably in nuisance telephone calls to members of the public on behalf of political parties. I know that this is not always the most popular slot for Members or Ministers, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming to reply on behalf of the Government.
	This Adjournment debate, like many others, arose directly from constituency casework. A constituent contacted me to complain that she was receiving marketing calls despite being registered with the telephone preference scheme, which should prevent that from happening. She even went to the additional trouble of going ex-directory, but continued to receive such calls. Apparently, the problem has become worse because of the introduction and more frequent use by tele-sales companies of automated dialling equipment. Many people are not aware of that technology; it involves computers that randomly generate telephone numbers and call people to sell them things. It is sometimes known as power dialling.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who confirmed that this practice could occur, and I received a written reply from the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, because the matter fell under his responsibilities. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to quote from some documents as I go along, to tell the story of how the matter developed. In the Minister's reply, he confirmed that
	"an ex-directory listing"
	by a customer
	"does not in itself prevent direct marketing calls. An ex-directory listing with BT means that the subscriber will not be included in the BT Phonebook, nor will BT give out details of the subscriber through their directory enquiries service. This will serve to stop calls from direct marketers using the telephone directory as a source of contact information. However, direct marketers who are using other sources for contact information, such as that collected from promotional questionnaires and flyers, or through dialling numbers at random or in series, will be unaffected by an ex-directory listing."
	I believe that most people would be surprised to find out that registering one's number as ex-directory does not provide protection against calls from direct marketers. To achieve that it is necessary to register actively with the telephone preference scheme, but, in fact, that scheme in itself does not protect the customer from market surveys by companies. I shall return to that point towards the end of my remarks, with some suggestions for the Minister.
	Two more constituents then contacted me to draw my attention to an even more worrying aspect of the technology and practice of power dialling. The first, Gill, contacted me because she had been receiving silent phone calls—very worrying and disturbing—and, not being a vulnerable person but someone who was active and was worried that she might be being stalked, she contacted the nuisance calls bureau. She discovered that the silent calls were emanating not from someone who was stalking her or trying to frighten her, but from a commercial organisation, and were being produced by power-dialling equipment.
	The second constituent, Simon, contacted me because he had been receiving phone calls at regular two-hourly intervals. When he picked up the receiver, a silent call resulted, follow some time later by a click. He investigated and, interestingly, when he contacted the nuisance call bureau of his telephone provider, NTL, was told that if it was a nuisance phone call that might result in criminal action—that is, from someone with malicious intent—the bureau staff would contact the police, but if a commercial operator was responsible NTL would contact the commercial operator but would not tell Simon who had been calling him.
	The problem with such calls is that when the recipient tries to discover who is behind the phone call by dialling 1471, he hears the message:
	"The caller withheld their number",
	which makes it very difficult indeed to discover what is going on, and very worrying.
	On 31 August 2001, I wrote to the Minister about that problem. On 1 October I received a reply, in which my hon. Friend confirmed that power dialling silent calls did occur.
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Kevin Brennan: The Minister's letter states:
	"This equipment automatically transfers the call to an available operator if the call is answered. Although the system can give the direct marketer certain efficiency savings, it can also result in silent calls which are subsequently terminated at times when the number of answered calls exceeds the number of available operators . . . registration with the TPS"—
	the telephone preference scheme—
	"should offer her protection from all direct marketing calls, irrespective of how they have been dialled.
	To address the issue my Officials have arranged to meet with Oftel, the ICO"—
	the Information Commissioner's office—
	"both BT and NTL's nuisance calls bureau and the Direct Marketing Association at the beginning of November. I will update you on their findings in due course."
	I have yet to receive an update, and I hope to hear from the Minister about the outcome of those consultations, what the current position is, and what progress is being made in dealing with the problem.
	As the Minister suggested, I contacted the telephone preference scheme. I received a reply on 16 November as follows:
	"Whilst registering with the TPS may well stop silent calls if the cause of them is a power dialler used by a telephone marketing company the use of auto diallers is widespread and it could be the call is not initiated by a direct marketing company."
	That shows that, as I said, one can still receive nuisance calls from market survey companies in particular. The letter continues:
	"One of the main problems is identification of the companies making silent calls and sanctions that can be taken against them. Until the caller can be identified and contacted there is no way of telling if the attempted call was an unsolicited sales and marketing call . . . TPS is anxious to see enforcement action taken against companies who do not abide by the Telecommunications (Data Protection & Privacy) Regulations 1999 . . . TPS is keen to see the problem of silent calls reduced as the increase in registrations as a result of recommendations that registering with TPS will solve the problem is an unforeseen cost burden to running the service."
	The Government are recommending that people register with the telephone preference scheme to get over the problem, but according to the letter—from Tessa Kelly, director of compliance operations for the scheme—doing so imposes unforeseen cost burdens on the service. In November, I received an answer to a parliamentary question to the Minister, which confirmed the existence of this particular practice.
	Following those letters and constituency cases, I tried to find out exactly what was going on, and in that regard I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for its help. I discovered that two types of power dialling exist, the first of which is not so pernicious. We all accept that tele-sales calls are regrettably necessary, and the first type of power dialling makes outgoing calls only when an agent becomes free. In that way, it can be guaranteed that an agent is available to take successful call attempts. In other words, on answering the telephone, a human voice explains who they are, which company they represent and what they are trying to sell. Most people would find it reasonable to receive a call of that type if they have not registered with a telephone preference service.
	It is the second and more pernicious type of power dialling to which I object. It is known in the industry as predictive power dialling and is a version of power dialling that attempts to improve agent productivity by increasing their talk minutes per hour. The computer application that makes the outbound calls uses predictive analysis to maximise the agent's telephone talk time. That is achieved through a combination of predicting when an agent is likely to become free and starting an outbound call to coincide with it or, alternatively, through predicting the number of call attempts that are statistically answered.
	For example, if only one in three call attempts are successful, the system can make three simultaneous outbound calls at the same time although only one agent is free. If people answer the telephone in greater numbers than the computer predicts, which is bound to happen from time to time, the unfortunate person at the other end of the line will receive a corporate silent nuisance call. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is unacceptable. We need to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect the citizen from such corporate nuisance calls.
	Oftel started to review the use of power dialling in June last year with a view to relaxing further the restrictions on the use of that type of technology. However, it admitted in the consultation documents that there is huge potential for abuse of the technology. As a result, it issued a statement on 18 January 2002 in which it said that the current regulatory position should mean that the calls do not take place. The director general of communications said:
	"The use of automatic equipment licence condition (the ACE Condition) prohibits the use of automatic calling equipment . . . where the resultant call does not consist of live speech, unless written consent has first been obtained from the recipient of the call. The ACE Condition is intended to protect consumers from abuses, including . . . using ACE to initiate calls with insufficient operators available to take the calls when answered, resulting in customers receiving either a recorded message or just silence."
	The document goes on to say that Oftel decided to relax the restriction requiring prior written consent for such a call. However, regulations are in place to stop them. In theory, therefore, despite the dilution that Oftel announced to the regulations on power dialling, consumers should still be covered by the existing protection. However, it seems from the information that I receive from constituents that they are not.
	There is little awareness of the problem and only a low level of protection. There have been one or two references to the issue in the public domain and the press. Sue Arnold wrote an article in The Independent as long ago as 30 January 1999 in which she described how she received silent telephone calls at 27 minutes past three every afternoon which were from a corporate source. In finding out about the series of nuisance calls that she was receiving, she came across the term "power dialling" for the first time. Furthermore, I discovered a letter as recently as 17 December last year in the Daily Express, which was from a Mr. Peter Ivers of London SE8. He wrote:
	"Having been subject to such calls for about a year, I rang BT to request an ex-directory number and it was then that I was informed that 'power-dialling' was probably to blame and that the companies concerned had been asked to include a recorded message informing the recipient of the nature of the call but they had declined to do so. If anyone out there has any ideas on how to combat this problem, I would like to hear them."
	That is partly why we are here today; we want to hear the Government's views on that. Clearly, this problem is still going on. Incidentally, if the company included a recorded message telling the recipient the source of the call, that would technically be illegal, because the call would not have resulted in live speech but in recorded speech.
	I believe that what I have uncovered is just the tip of the iceberg. This morning, a constituent who heard that I was raising this subject in Parliament sent me an e-mail via the House of Commons website constituency locator service to say that he was pleased that I was raising the issue. As one of my constituents, he wanted to tell me—I shall not repeat the words that he used, for fear of breaching the convention of the House—that he had had many of these calls early in the morning and at weekends. He said that he would not call himself a vulnerable member of society, but that he genuinely thought that he had a crank caller. When he reported the calls to BT's nuisance calls line, he was given a number to ring and he was able to get his name removed.
	This should not be happening. Many people out there are not going to the trouble of contacting the nuisance calls bureau because they are living in fear of the kind of calls that they are receiving. Thousands of people are suffering in silence. Perhaps today's debate might help them to come forward and raise their concerns with Members of Parliament.
	It is not clear that there has been sufficient will to deal with the problem until now, but the Government are now aware of it. With power dialling, the balance of rights between the citizen and the corporate world is wrong. There is a lack of public understanding of the problems, and there is a confusing number of bodies involved—TPS, Oftel, the Information Commissioner, DTI, NTL, BT, representatives of the industry and the Direct Marketing Association. It is a confusing picture for members of the public.
	We need to establish clear principles. There should be no predictive power dialling, and the pernicious form should be completely stopped. Companies should not be allowed to withhold their numbers when they ring people up to sell them something and there should be rapid action against an abuse of that. Telephone preference scheme registration should also be included when somebody registers as ex-directory, unless the consumer opts out from that registration.
	As I said earlier, tele-sales can be a good thing. Many people enjoy the benefits of being able to buy goods and services over the telephone, but it is open to abuse. I have not even mentioned some of the overseas scams of which some other Members of Parliament are aware, in which people are phoned from overseas and have to ring back high-premium numbers. I would like to know that the current regulation is being enforced and to hear the outcome of the Minister's talks.
	One of my constituents suggested an alternative to registering with the telephone preference scheme: when people receive one of these calls, they should politely ask the caller for the home telephone number of the directors of the company involved so that they can phone them up in case they have anything to sell—perhaps a useful way of trying to get rid of that old kitchen table.

Douglas Alexander: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this debate. As he said, the motivation was his concern for his constituents, which is widely recognised across the House. I am fully aware that the subject of the debate can, as we have heard, rouse strong feelings and generates much interest, not least from individual constituents. I shall seek first to put the issues into context.
	Used responsibly, telephone marketing is a useful and valuable tool for businesses; used badly, it can be the cause of serious nuisance and inconvenience. It is therefore important that the right protections are put in place. I shall outline what the current rules say about unsolicited direct marketing by phone, and the individual subscriber's right to opt out, and then move on to what people can do if they are getting those unwanted calls.
	The current rules originate from the EU telecoms data protection and privacy directive. Under the UK implementing regulations, we introduced statutory opt-out rights for individual phone subscribers who do not want to receive unsolicited direct marketing calls. They can register with the telephone preference service, or TPS, which is run by the Direct Marketing Association under supervision by the telecoms regulator Oftel. Registration is fairly straightforward: a telephone subscriber can do it by phone, fax, post or e-mail, and it is free.
	The regulations also give individual subscribers the right to opt out of calls from particular direct marketers. No one may make an unsolicited direct marketing call to someone who has previously instructed them not to ring again. People may object to calls from a particular marketer without wanting to opt out on a blanket basis, and the rules accommodate that option for the individual telephone subscriber. Of course, that raises the question what are the sanctions for breaches of the regulations.
	The Information Commissioner has powers to enforce the rules and will take action against direct marketers who persist in breaching the rules despite being warned of their obligations. Ultimately, failure to comply with an enforcement notice issued by the commissioner is a criminal offence punishable by a fine. Alongside those provisions for the individual telephone subscriber stands the position for corporate subscribers. No one should suffer in silence if they are being called despite having registered with the TPS or opting out of calls from particular marketers. Anyone who finds that they are being called despite opting out should complain to the TPS, if they are registered, or to the commissioner's office.
	The TPS does not apply to corporate subscribers, however. The Government took that decision following extensive consultation before the new regulations were introduced. Many businesses both sell and buy products and services over the telephone. However, although corporate subscribers do not have a blanket opt-out right, as with the TPS, they do have the right to instruct individual callers not to make further calls to them. That right comes from the Telecommunications Act 1984 licensing regime, which requires anyone making that kind of call to cease doing so on receipt of a written request. Those rules are enforced by Oftel.
	Yet it remains the case that those rights are enforceable only where the source of direct marketing calls can be traced and people know who is behind a rogue call. Consequently, as part of all direct marketing calls, the caller must give their name and, on request, a freephone telephone number on which they can be contacted. If callers withhold that information, telephone operators are able to trace the source of calls and disclose it to subscribers and/or the relevant enforcement body.
	My hon. Friend identified the problem concerning the significant number of complaints received recently about the use of power diallers by direct marketers. These systems, also known in the industry as auto-diallers or predictive diallers, generate calls automatically but can cause silent calls if there are not enough operators available at the direct marketer's end to handle all the calls put through. When the call reaches its destination, if there is no operator available, a silent call results.
	I stress that whatever phone system a direct marketer is using, he or she must still respect registration on the TPS or any direct request not to make any further calls. Direct marketers who fail to do so risk breaching the regulations and, therefore, enforcement action. When subscribers receive silent calls, their service provider should be able to trace their source. I understand, however, that marketers are now taking action themselves to sort out that problem. The DMA issued new guidelines in January which all responsible marketers will want to follow. These are to be incorporated into the DMA's code of practice, which is binding on its members.
	My hon. Friend referred to individuals dialling 1471 to identify the person making the call. Among other things, the new guidelines require direct marketers to provide calling line identification when using that kind of calling system. The effect is that the source of any failed calls can be traced by dialling 1471. The marketer must ensure that anyone who rings back on the number thus provided is given clear information about the marketer's identity and how to stop any further calls. The guidelines will also strictly limit the number of failed calls that systems can make.
	The new guidelines result from an industrywide initiative and follow extensive consultation that involved, among others, representatives of telephone operators' nuisance call bureaux and of enforcement agencies including the Information Commissioner's office, Oftel and ICSTIS—the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—as well as my officials. Although I regret the delay in responding to his earlier letter, I assure my hon. Friend that the work has been continuing as I have described. I am sure that the new guidelines will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House as a significant step forward.
	I agree that silent calls of any kind can be distressing. If silent calls are made with malicious intent, consumers should contact their telephone operator. Operators co-operate with police to trace any such calls, and such investigations can lead ultimately to prosecution and fines, or imprisonment for those found guilty of making malicious calls with intent.
	The new regulations I mentioned are making a real difference as subscribers and marketers become more accustomed to the new system. Surveys carried out on behalf of the TPS show that 27 per cent. of the UK population is now aware of the service—an increase of 5 per cent. over last year. The number of direct marketers that check their lists with the TPS has also increased considerably. Some 1.8 million subscribers are now registered with the TPS. Despite rising registration numbers, the TPS reports that the number of complaints has remained steady, at approximately 300 a week, which indicates increased compliance.
	My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that there is to be an opportunity to review how the regulations are working and whether improvements can be made when we implement the communications data protection directive, which is the updated version of the directive on which the current rules are based. The new directive is expected to be adopted later this year for implementation in 2003. Not least because of the degree of interest in these matters, we will run a consultation exercise before we implement the new rules, and I shall certainly welcome Members of Parliament and their constituents giving their views as part of that process.
	Although real progress has been made, we now have a significant opportunity to take forward this important work. Our ongoing challenge is to ensure the appropriate balance between the use of responsible telephone marketing as a useful and valuable tool for business and appropriate protection from serious nuisance and inconvenience resulting from misuse.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Three o'clock. 24 April 2002; In col. 426, the third sentence in the paragraph starting "With 19,000 applications" should read "More than 43,000 asylum applicants were still awaiting an initial decision in the middle of last year."